Informed by the comments, some revisions have been made to the original post.
This post begins my series-long critique of the Book of Mormon. And to kick-off the series, I’m going to focus on what I consider to be the most problematic part of the Book of Mormon: Third Nephi, chapters 8 and 9. These chapters record the events that immediately followed the crucifixion of Christ.
And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land. And there was also a great and terrible tempest; and there was terrible thunder, insomuch that it did shake the whole earth as if it was about to divide asunder. And there were exceedingly sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land. (3 Nephi 8: 5-7)
Whirlwinds, three days of darkness, and the wholesale destruction of many ancient American cities are described in 3 Nephi 8 as well. Amidst this chaos, the Nephites and Lamanites might well have asked, “Where is our god?” Well, we find out in 3 Nephi 9 that god was behind it all. Indeed, he seems to boast about it:
And it came to pass that there was a voice [later identified to be Christ's] heard among all the inhabitants of the earth, upon all the face of this land, crying: Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall repent; for the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen!
Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof. And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned. And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof …
And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth; Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof …
And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk … and the inhabitants thereof have I buried up in the depths of the earth …
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 … And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof …
And because they did cast them all out, that there were none righteous among them, I did send down fire and destroy them, that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among them might not cry unto me from the ground against them.
And many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and their abominations. (3 Nephi 9: 1-12)
It is often said by Mormons that people apostatize because they were offended. And you know what, I was offended. I was offended that the LDS Church would have me worship a god who perpetrated the above mass murder. And not just any god, but Christ—the Prince of Peace. On the cross, Christ pled with the Father to forgive his killers (Luke 23:34). Are we to honestly believe that this same Christ, just moments later, would burn, bury, and drown 16 cities and their inhabitants? That doesn’t sound like a loving and merciful god. That sounds like Godzilla.
Granted, Jehovah, who Mormons believe was the premortal Christ, committed similar atrocities throughout the Old Testament. And sure, the Jesus of the New Testament promised a violent apocalypse in the end times. But if the destruction in Third Nephi is in fact consistent with Christ’s character, then all the more reason to deny his omnibenevolence.
I anticipate that some will justify the death and destruction in Third Nephi on account of the peoples’ unrighteousness. Still, Christ’s response is wildly disproportionate. What sins could possibly warrant the destruction of 16 cities and every inhabitant (including children below the “age of accountability”)?
Chapters 8 and 9 in Third Nephi also have implications for the Book of Mormon’s historicity. If the remarkable phenomena they detail really happened, why is ancient history totally silent about them? A booming voice from heaven, three days of darkness, and the destruction of 16 cities wouldn’t escape attention. We should expect the Maya and other ancient American peoples (among whom the Nephites and Lamanites would have lived) to have mentioned these events in either their writings or oral traditions, but—as far as we can tell—they didn’t.
The absence of these events in any historical record is perhaps less important than their absence in the archeological record. Sixteen cities don’t simply disappear without a trace. In 79 AD, the Roman town Pompeii was completely buried in ash after Mount Vesuvius erupted. It was later rediscovered in 1599. Pompeii was just one town, found without the aid of modern technology. And yet we can’t find any of the 16 cities that Third Nephi claims were destroyed.
In light of this dearth of both historical and archeological evidence, I think we can reject Third Nephi as an accurate history. And Mormons should welcome this conclusion, because otherwise their savior is a sadist and not worthy of worship.
“But I thought that with the atonement, god’s relationship with man changed—what with the Mosaic Law being fulfilled and all.”
Jon, this simply interpretation doesn’t work with apocalyptic prophecy. The Prince of Peace turns into the Prince of cleaning house during the end of days. I honestly can’t do the scriptural imagery justice. (Yes, that would be post crucifixion.) In light of that fact, I’m at a genuine loss for what you’re attempting to prove with this.
“Third Nephi not only casts doubt upon Christ’s goodness, but the Book of Mormon’s historicity as well. If the remarkable phenomena in Third Nephi truly happened, why is ancient history totally silent about them? A booming voice from heaven, three days of darkness, and the destruction of 16 major cites wouldn’t escape a historian’s attention. And yet only Nephi had the good sense to record these events?”
Which ancient historians of this place and period are you citing? I’m dying to know. Are you seriously arguing that since the histories and records THAT WE DON’T HAVE don’t mention this event, the 3 Nephi account is fiction. Wait, really?
I found this as well as the constant Nephite/Lamanite genocidal wars to be really disturbing when I was a member. I remember praying in the MTC to ask god to help me understand why he would do that. I never got a satisfactory answer. It always seemed to unnecessarily brutal. I could never believe that wiping out an entire people was a just or appropriate response to “wickedness”, and couple that with the fact that god doesn’t wipe out entire civilisations today for their “wickedness”, it seemed totally hypocritical.
@Ryan,
What I think he’s saying is that your “Prince of cleaning house” is a god not worthy of worship. A god who would murder/kill/destroy thousands of people, including innocents because they didn’t believe in him is a god on par with Hitler or Stalin, but even more evil because he supposedly has all power and knowledge.
I also don’t know exactly what he’s referring to when he says “…and the destruction of 16 major cites wouldn’t escape a historian’s attention. And yet only Nephi had the good sense to record these events?”, but I assume he’s referring to the Toltec, Mayan and Aztec historical records we do have, and the fact that they never mention anything even remotely resembling the massive devastation and days of darkness which allegedly occurred. There’s also the lack of any geological evidence supporting these claims.
“the Toltec, Mayan and Aztec historical records we do have, and the fact that they never mention anything even remotely resembling the massive devastation and days of darkness which allegedly occurred.”
This is exactly what bothers me. We’ve got records of animals coming to life and eating villages and then granting wishes. We’ve got oral tradition of just about anything and everything improbable under the sun. The claim that we have all of that and nothing that even remotely resembles a story about angry gods and earthquakes is just too cut and dry; too convenient. Quite frankly, it’s unbelievable. I personally don’t care one way or the other, as I’ve abandoned all of my theodicies, but the claim just seems a little too good to be true.
I agree with you that it’s not proof that 3 Nephi is fiction. I’m not at all that familiar with pre-Columbian histories, so I’m not aware of what we would expect to be included. I was just guessing as to what Jon was referring to.
What do you mean by “I’ve abandoned all of my theodicies”? Are you a theist?
@Craig: I took a fantastic course last semester at Utah State, titled: “Evil and Suffering” from Dr. Philip Barlow. I had started to privately develop a Whitehead/Hartshorne style process theodicy after reading Charles Hartshorne’s “Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes.” (I still highly recommend it.) Its rejection of what is all too often the most precious “omni” of the inconsistent triad was something my faith was able to absorb rather nicely. But the Evil and Suffering course taught me what it was meant to (I suspect) and I have since become disenchanted with the development of these types of excuses — no matter how clever. I’ve also all but lost interest in dialoging with those who still entertain them. Their genesis is often selfishness (by way of personal comfort), with little sympathy going to the actual victims. I’ve personally settled on “I don’t know” as my answer and thrown the rest away. Better uncomfortable than just plain ugly.
I’m a theist. I’ve spent 10 years doing Mormon history, and after traveling the spectrum of belief, disbelief, anger and acceptance, have come to something similar to Ricoeur’s “second naivete.” To answer your question, I very much consider myself a Mormon, though others might not. Again, it’s complicated.
“My argument here is that even if the Book of Mormon is true, that doesn’t make the god described therein worthy of worship.”
While I think you make a point, I’m not so sure I would agree. While the idea is unpalatable, a cruel God is still one worthy of worship…if anything it gives ‘the wicked’ far more reason to repent and worship. Harsh justice yes, but a tyrant God is still a God.
Acknowledging that God might not be fully good is something that a few theists have thought out and in theologys of protest they still remain faithful.
However if a cruel God is something you still think isn’t worthy of worship, I think there are other ways of thinking about it. One can easily trust that God has a justifiable reason to act in such a way. God causes the flood, commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son and Nephi to slay Laban – while at first glance cruel, God’s honored position and vision can allow him to act in his children’s best interest. Lets not forget that the mormon theist concern isn’t about a short lived moment compared to the eternities.
Furthermore God could easily work with scare tactics D&C 19 says “And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.
Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.
Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory. ”
Let me add an interpretation. God uses scare tactics for his name’s glory – and his glory is to bring to past the immortality and eternal life of man.
I’ve heard it phrased this way before – God sometimes uses telestial means to work with telestial people. Sometimes all they understand is fear and punishment. This doesn’t mean that God is mean or cruel, He could just be parenting a different way with different children as no two children are alike.
Lastly, this trust that God has his reasons for disasters by his hand is still far more comforting to me as a theist than the incredibly crueler atheistic perception in which shit happens. Period. And if it came to it, i’d still take a cruel God over atheism.
The point is that I think Mormons can easily retain gratitude for a historical 3rd nephi after thoughtful and careful consideration.
If Mormons want to believe in a god who resorts to telestial means to further celestial purposes, that’s fine. But do we really learn the value of repentance (or some other celestial purpose) from the events that transpired in Third Nephi. Some may, I don’t know. The primary lesson as far as I’m concerned, though, is that Christ has a rather violent temper.
If you can excuse the behavior in Third Nephi, what couldn’t you excuse? What would god have to do to convince you that he was a bad god? If the answer is nothing, then your faith is as blind and potentially dangerous as is Bin Laden’s. And that’s not hyperbole. But I know you to be more thoughtful than that, Eric, so I hope you can answer my challenge.
Such a god may be worthy of respect and fear but not devotion, admiration, and loving worship.
What qualities, exactly, would make a god worth worshiping? Would pure omnibenevolence do the trick? It seems not, at least to me, because I could imagine the most benevolent, kind, gentle old man and not be struck with any desire to worship (though I might want to emulate). It seems to me that worship relies on an almost completely one-sided relation of authority; God rules unquestionably above, humans quiver with fear at His displeasure below.
You can paint this picture of human fear in a very ugly way, true; but what saves you from being painted up yourself? “No man is a hero to his valet-de-chambre,” says Hegel, “but not because the former is no hero, but because the latter is a valet.” Suppose God is real. What’s to keep him from calling you Thersites and clubbing you on the head?
It is great to see that some others have caught on to the GLARING ideological inconsistencies of Mormon scriptural accounts & doctrine, especially with the supposed personality of God. I think what you have pointed out is accurate in terms of im plausability for a benevolent god which is what NT Christ was supposed to be. The OT Jehovah is very brutal in contrast & it is supposed to be the same person. This outlines another glaring inconsistency that bothered me. It is the NT Christ that is supposed to return …..some day, but when He does finally get around to it, He is going to carry on like the OT Jehovah, in the same city/people destroying mode that you pointed out.
The Anti Christ has been wreaking havoc, exercising total domination & destroying all opposition, so Christ finally returns to banish evil ….. by exercising total domination & destroying all that have angered Him & who dare to oppose Him. He has to do this to set Himself up as the reigning Prince of Peace.
@Bonvolait: I’m not sure how glaring or inconsistent this really is. The Jewish “messiah” had a role that was pretty well scripted before the coming of Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth was rejected, in part, because he didn’t fit the image of the feisty messiah figure some had looked toward. Jesus instead came with a very practical message to the Jews: Don’t revolt or you’ll be slaughtered. The “Sermon on the Mount,” according to Anglican theologian N.T. Wright, had as much to do with self preservation as anything else. We know what happened in 70 AD. My point is that while you have these teachings of peace, you also have a heavy-handed mission looming in the background, almost a “let me fight your battles” train of thought which is not at all “ideologically inconsistent” with either the Old Testament or apocalyptic prophecy. Of course there are other explanations to all of this. I’m fascinated by Jesus studies at the moment and may answer differently tomorrow.
whatever your view of God is, it doesnt matter, the personality, words AND actions (do as i do) of NT jesus and 3 Nehpi jesus is a complete mismatch! the people of christs time were just as unrighteous as the people of 3 nephi (heck, they killed their own “savior”), yet NT jesus didnt use fear and death and destruction to get people to “fall in line”. and KILLING the people of 3 nephi didnt encourage/scare them towards obedience, they were KILLED!
brilliant article Jon =)
Interesting. I’m curious as to how this is mismatch? Who killed more people, the Jehovah/Jesus character of the BOM or the Jehovah/Jesus of the Bible? If you truly consider them separate it’s not even close. And if the Jesus of the NT is so opposed to violence, what do we make of the prophecies about his future role –coming from him, mind you– in the book of Revelation? You do realize the NT Jesus is going to come kill billions of people, right?
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
John Stuart Mill
So where was God during the Holocaust? Shouldn’t he have burned drowned or sunk a Nazi city or two “because of their sins and their wickedness”?
You ever seen pictures of Nazi Germany after World War II?
The Allied bombers over Dresden weren’t strictly speaking “fire from heaven” but they were about as close as you can get.
The German cities were generally flattened.
I think it is error to try and interpret scriptural/spiritual history with modern-day notions of fairness. For starters, if you believe in God and an afterlife, death is NOT such a terrible thing, especially in Mormon theology, where repentance is still available even after death. I believe that this 3 Nephi account of God destroying cities portrays a God who is encouraging those still living to repent (via scare tactics that mortals will understand, as Eric explained). But again, the people who died are not really that much worse off. If they were wicked, God ended their lives because they were just going to keep being wicked and if anything, death might provide them a second chance to get their act together in the afterlife. When God allows someone who is righteous to die, their souls are sent to place of paradise and rest. So it’s a win-win.
That is how I am able to hear about the death of children and innocent people across the globe and still believe in God.
This is precisely why I think atheism is more life-affirming than theism. At the point at which the death of children and innocent people “is not such a terrible thing,” you’ve robbed life of most of its meaning. Denying the importance of this life is also risky, considering that it is likely our only life.
And I’ll ask you what I asked Eric: If god committing mass murder doesn’t make you question his benevolence, what would?
Jon,
I agree that atheism is more life-affirming than self-serving judgemental theism. However, there are I-don’t-know-why theists who find themselves closer to your life-affirming atheism than to the damning theist. I would not broad brush either group. There are damning atheists, too (A point I seem to make often on this blog.)
I am certain that the slam poetry winner of your recent post (“I am sorry I am a Christian”) finds himself attacked by Conservative Christians and praised by agnostics and atheists. I enjoy and identify with his slam poem. I was also chastised rather severely by a conservative Christian (whom I thought was rather reasonable) for pointing to the same video on my rather obscure unread blog.
Vince, what’s your blog? I’ll add it to the blogroll.
I’ve seen atheism misused just as much as theism (Mao Zedong anyone?). You can be a nice moral person under either worldview.
I don’t think anyone in this thread has claimed otherwise, Seth.
I don’t think it’s been misused “just as much as theism”. Certainly I deplore any evil done in the name of atheism, but you have to concede that the instances of theism being used to justify murder, genocide, war, etc. are far more numerous and frequent than the instances of atheism. Indeed, in the cases of Soviet Russia, China, and others I don’t think that atheism was the reason given, rather it was authoritarian communism and/or political ideals. Atheism got a bad-rap in the west because those regimes were atheistic, but I don’t think atheism was the central motivating force nor the core ideology in contrast with theistic regimes, wars, etc.
And I agree that neither atheism nor theism inherently make one moral or immoral, though I do think that because in our society, atheism is often coupled with secular humanism, atheists on average tend to have a greater regard for fellow humans than theists on average do.
Craig,
Consider American expansionism over native cultures or American slavery. They were often rationalized with Christian theological statements, but I don’t think Christianity was the motivating force nor the core ideology. Mostly it was economic interests based on gold or land or slave-labor, etc. Theistic reasons were ‘paste-over’ justifications.
That said, I agree that there have been regimes that used theistic motivations for immoral action. I was in Barcelona Spain this last week and learned in more detail of the atrocities of Queen Isabella of Spain. Her husband Ferdinand was just enjoying royal life, but she imposed a declaration of one language, one religion on all her lands. In “1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue” and the Jews and Muslims had to convert or leave under the guidance of the rejuvenated Spanish Inquisition. In the light of such acts “I am sorry to be called a Christian” like the slam poet.
Finally, you say “atheists on average tend to have a greater regard for fellow humans than theists on average do.” I agree. First, there are more immoral theists than atheists. Second, thoughtful atheism typically is embraced by someone with a higher education that the average theist. They generally embrace the morality of secular-humanism, which is often far superior to typical theism. So on an average, yes, atheists have greater regard for humanity than the average theist. But note that many thoughtful theists will typically also embrace humanism.
One should also recognize that modern secular-humanism develops out of the context of several millenia of theistic discourse on morality and altruism. The secular part arises from the atrocities that occur by imposing a national religion over other religions. Atheism, while always present, has only been a recent voice in the discussion. I feel that the way forward is for the continued discourse with a growing voice for atheists.
vince, that really depends on who you are including in the category of “religious” and “atheist.”
There are studies of the atheist population that include among their ranks agnostics and deists – even though both are not really atheists. Studies of the religious also tend to include people who are only nominally religious. To get real results, you’d have to study people who are highly active in their religions and report the findings.
That’s because theism has been dominant for longer Craig.
This is a human thing. Not a religious thing.
I guess I’ll answer in a controversial way.
You said, “What sins could warrant mass murder? Even today, the worst sins only warrant excommunication.”
Have you ever thought that excommunication is a worse “punishment” than death?
Probably not. If you take the view that life is the most important thing that there is, then this is an absurd idea.
You may be right then, in saying that atheists (on average) are more life-affirming (and you will have problems addressing the rogue ones who do kill…because life is the big deal.)
But in a different context, this is nullified. In this case, someone who dies still is resurrected, although their state in the afterlife will depend. Children aren’t a lost cause; it’s easy to conceive that they end up quite well off.
You’re right, Andrew, that on Mormonism it may well be the case that excommunication is worse than death. And that’s a scary thought.
Well yeah Jon, but that simply begs the question that nothing is worse than death.
Even if death isn’t the worst thing, the doesn’t give god a license to kill. It doesn’t excuse Christ’s “many great destructions” in Third Nephi.
Mormons are welcome to maintain that there are things worse then death, so long as they understand the consequences of that belief. If it’s the Mormon position that death “is NOT such a terrible thing,” then I never want to hear Mormons decry Islamist suicide terrorism.
I also have to extend this question to you, Seth: What could god do that would make him unworthy of worship?
Jon.
Force people not to kill and hurt each other. Interfere where not invoked. Or to fail to keep promises made with his people.
That would make him unworthy of worship in my mind.
Why those criteria, Seth?
And what do you meant by “Interfere where not invoked”? And where as Christ’s interference in Third Nephi invoked?
Jon, I feel a God that is willing to force good behavior has violated human free will to such extent that it can make no logical difference whether I choose to worship him or not. Any choice I would make would be coerced, and all human experience is merely a big pointless gerbil experience.
As for the choice of the word invoked – what I wanted to convey is when God has been bound into a covenant relationship with a group of people. They have freely chosen him and he has chosen them. Rejection, evil and wrongdoing are much much worse in that context and demand a covenanted response. Where much is given, much is required.
And no, I have no desire to turn God and Jesus into some sort of all-powerful Care Bear. Nice, sweet and loving…
And a total pansy.
What’s to worship there?
A “pansy” god isn’t worth worshipping, but a violent bad-ass who’ll murder your whole family if you break some minuscule rule is?
Yikes. I find that view quite disturbing.
And how does a child who is brought up to believe a particular religion “freely choose” to enter into a covenant with this god? Certainly an 8-year-old cannot freely be choosing, understanding the consequences, to promise a god anything. Nor is it fair to say that a 19-year-old boy who has been brought up and programmed by Mormonism his entire life be realistically be expected to make that covenant/promise. When you go to the temple, you’re not told what you’re going to promise, nor what the consequence for breaking that promise is until it’s too late to back out – a pretty unethical practise. I’d argue that it’s impossible and ridiculous for a whole people to enter into a permanent, multi-generational contract with a god, and then be punished years later, often centuries, for not obeying a promise their great-great-great grandfather made. It’s just ridiculous.
Craig, it’s pretty-much free association day with me over on this blog today. I give no promises that I know what the hell I’m talking about.
If I’d actually figured out the “problem of evil” I’d be a much more impressive and noteworthy person than I am. Obviously I have a ways to go on the topic.
Yeah, I have to agree with Seth here. Pointing out, “that’s a scary thought” or “atheism is more life-affirming” is just question-begging. Sure, you might appeal to a lot of people who happen to agree that life is something to be placed highly, but this says nothing about whether life is the most important thing.
I mean, when you get into these kinds of religious communities, you have to account for people who are willing to die for their causes. Who are willing to suffer (sometimes in gruesome ways) for their causes. Clearly, life isn’t the only thing that matters.
Not a bad point, but again, that doesn’t excuse what happened in Third Nephi. Mormons may believe that death isn’t the worst thing, but surely they believe that it’s wrong. I mean, murder is an unforgivable sin in Mormonism! So I’m surprised at how quick some Mormons are to exonerate Christ from wrongdoing in Third Nephi.
“Mormons may believe that death isn’t the worst thing, but surely they believe that it’s wrong.”
No. Death doesn’t have to be seen as wrong in any sense of the word. “He’s off to a better place now…” etc., People take that seriously. Saying, “God took him from this wretched world to a better place,” isn’t too far and away from here.
There is, of course, an entire difference with God’s plan (which may include death and killing) and some dude taking some other guy’s life without any care of God’s plan.
So, ultimately, it shouldn’t be so surprising at how quick some Mormons are to exonerate Christ from wrongdoing in 3 Nephi. You haven’t established wrongdoing.
What could establish wrongdoing? That’s my frustration. Too many theists (Mormons include) subscribe to a divine voluntarism by which there could NEVER be established that god committed any wrongdoing. And god’s goodness includes killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, then that seems to do violence to the common sense understanding of what good is. Could god condone rape for his divine purposes, as he did in the OT. Are Mormons comfortable with that? If so, at least they’re consistent. But hopefully that wouldn’t really sit well with most Mormons.
well, since members are apparently very fine with a god who allows killing (so that a nation may not dwindle in disbelief), this isn’t too problematic at all.
Then I have no more respect for their faith than I do Bin Laden’s.
Jon, plenty of educated Mormons I know view the retelling of the Israelite genocides as laced with after-the-fact nationalist propaganda. We are not really bound to take everything that happened in the Old Testament as God’s direct will.
By the by, stating that because Mormons do not consider death to be the worst thing around, they must then agree with 9-11 suicide bombers is just a tad over-the-top don’t you think?
“Jon, plenty of educated Mormons I know view the retelling of the Israelite genocides as laced with after-the-fact nationalist propaganda.”
And I know many of those educated Mormons. I haven’t claimed that being Mormon commits you to a literal reading of the OT.
“By the by, stating that because Mormons do not consider death to be the worst thing around, they must then agree with 9-11 suicide bombers is just a tad over-the-top don’t you think?”
I think you’re confused as to what I was criticizing (and I probably wasn’t terribly articulate). That Mormons don’t consider death to be the worst thing does not make them comparable to 9-11 suicide bombers. That would certainly be over-the-top. My comment was in direct response to what Andrew said: “well, since members are apparently very fine with a god who allows killing (so that a nation may not dwindle in disbelief), this isn’t too problematic at all.”
The idea that it’s okay to kill unrighteous people in order to spare a nation from disbelief is THE philosophy that undergirds the Islamist Jihad against us infidels.
I get the impression that when Joseph Smith was writing Nephi Chapters 8 and 9, he was thinking more of the Old Testament Sodom and Gommorah story than anything Jesus Christ ever said or did.
I had that very same thought.
First I want to point out to Craig, who seems to be an expert on Mormon covenants, that he is wrong because with every covenant you are explicitly told what will happen if you are unable to keep that covenant. As we probably all know a covenant is a promise or a contract that one makes with God. In breaking that contract there are consequences just like in our society where we have laws that say don’t murder or you’ll go to prison. The only difference is that God seems to have a better sense of morality because His consequences are more severe than 25 to life.
I have read the Book of Mormon several times and to get a complete understanding of the actions taken in 3 Nephi 8 and 9 you have to understand what happened the previous 600 years. The fact of the matter is that all those who perished in these chapters were sinful people who broke their promises. These were murderers, liars, plunderers. They were people who sought to destroy not only the righteousness of the people but everything else that they had! So my question to you is; why are you crying over people who do wrong? What about those who were innocent and had their lives taken in the previous book of Helaman by these same wicked people? Why aren’t you defending them?
The last question I place is this: If a God who defends His people is not worthy of worship in your eyes, please enlighten me on the type of God that I should be worshipping? Because apparently I’ve been following an unjust corrupt God and I need to find a better one. And keep in mind I don’t like the idea of an omnibenevolent God because not working for what you receive is, to me, a ridiculous idea that is perpetuated by lazy people who believe in entitlement and think that the world owes them something for allows us to be graced by their presence.
I wouldn’t say I’m an “expert” on Mormon covenants, but in the temple, when you go through to get your endowments, you’re told at one point that if you want you can leave, but it is way before you’re ever told what you have to promise the church/god, and what the penalties are for breaking those covenants. Once you’re told what those covenants are, you’re bound to accept them and bound to secrecy, whether you like it or not. This is textbook manipulation, and I find it abhorrent. I was Mormon for 23 years, served a mission, went to the temple many times, so I’m quite familiar with it, as well as Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, etc.
It is logically impossible for everyone who is said to have been killed in 3 Nephi to have been murderers, liars, and plunderers. When entire cities are destroyed, inevitably many (almost all) of those killed are innocent children, and people who simply refused to believe in a particular religion. Even if I believed that the BoM was historically accurate (which is ludicrous), I wouldn’t believe the accounts of the “righteous” as accurate any more than I believe that the accounts of the Israelites are accurate in the Bible. When 1 party writes history inevitably the whitewash out all their own sins. But as the BoM is fiction, the only point is that the god depicted in the BoM is very Old Testamenty. He’s wrathful, judgemental, and murderous. I don’t believe in either wickedness or righteousness. The characters of the BoM are unbelievably one dimensional, as is the story. It’s a morality play that is sophmoric at best.
I don’t think you should be following any type of god at all. Whether you find the Mormon version of god appealing is your own business. I never did; rather I found him to be capricious, unfair, harsh, jealous, and petulant. He’d commit genocide when it suited him, and ignore the suffering of actual innocents (or at least never intervene). I find that sort of behaviour in either a “god” or a man horrifying. If a person did even 10% of what your god is supposed to have done, we’d lock him up for life (or in more barbaric countries, put him to death), and that’s a fact.
Craig, would it be theoretically impossible for a city to get so bad, and so horrible, that the children were better off dead than being raised there?
Seth r.,
While I’m not Craig, I will answer your question with a definite “yes”, especially where human behavior is concerned. It should be kept in mind that what is considered “bad” by one group of people is not considered so “bad” by another group of people. Think of how we in the U.S. view dogs (pets) versus how some people in Asian countries view dogs (a delicacy). Another example? In the U.S., it is considered morally wrong to engage in premarital sexual relations. However, in some South Seas and African cultures, premarital sexual relations are not only not frowned upon, it is encouraged.
How about a city where only 10% of the people live well exploiting just about everyone else? Where life of most is nasty, short, painful and brutish. Where people are taught to perpetuate the cycle of abuse, and murder, damage, and lie to each other? Can you really not imagine a place where things have gotten bad enough that you are better off dead?
Seth R.,
Many South American and African cities at least partially follow the pattern you’ve laid out–an upper class of 10% or less controlling nearly all of the wealth and the poor masses just trying to survive below them. I would say that is a case for wealth redistribution not mass murder (though I suppose that many of the wealthy would stoop to the latter than have what they have “earned” taken away from them).
But getting back to your original point, I most certainly do not believe that an entire city is worth wiping out because of the inadequate distribution of resources. And while some religious books (including at least two Old Testament stories) argue that a city can get so bad that the “innocent children” should be killed by a “just God” to end the misery, I would strongly disagree with such notions. The way to fight injustice is not through indiscriminate killing–it is through acts of justice, kindness, and mercy.
To be clear, I’m not advocating such. But there do seem to be situations bad enough that death is not the worst option.
I imagine that if a person could conceivably be for euthanasia, then he should (conceivably) be able to understand something like this.
Seth R.,
I suppose one could argue that late-1930′s Germany under Adolf Hitler if you were a Jew or disabled or 1990s Ruwanda if you were a Tutsie could be considered cases in point–but those situations were created by humans hating other humans because of their tribe or ethnicity.
I personally think the more likely scenario where death is not the worst option is if you contract certain forms of diseases or injuries where living is very painful, to say the least, and there is no hope for a cure. In such cases, the state of Oregon probably has the right idea with its “right to die” amendment to its state constitution. While I have some issues with that amendment relating to bullying the severely ill to choose the death option by both loved ones and others who believe they will profit by the passing of such people, I think that the reasons for having this choice are the closest I can think of to death not always being the worst option.
While I greatly dislike arguing hypotheticals, I will answer your question. Even a nasty, short, painful, brutish life has redeeming moments, and one never can foretell whether the situation will take a turn for the better. Mostly though, it’s not for me to decide who lives and who dies. I believe the same goes for everyone, including imaginary gods. Even if there is an afterlife, even if it’s marvellous and wondrous and free of suffering, (and we have an utter lack of any evidence for any such thing), I still find the actions of the Mormon god monstrous. Certainly he has a few redeeming qualities, but they’re not enough to excuse his inaction when he could do great good, and his actions that are wholly evil. But as he’s no more real than Thor, Zeus or Sauron, in the end, it’s not really important.
The question however was never about whether the Mormon god was being merciful when he destroyed the cities described in 3 Nephi. It was whether it is ever excusable to commit mass-murder of (presumably) thousands of people, good, bad, and neutral, just because they disbelieve in an idea. I say no. Many Mormons say yes. I for one find that horrible and disturbing.
And for what it’s worth, I do think people should have the option to choose to die quickly and pain-free, especially in cases of terminal illness. In that sense, I support euthanasia.
I can imagine a place so bad that it would be better to be dead than alive.
However, if I were omnipotent (or at least reasonably so) and trying to improve the situation, then I imagine I could manage a better solution than mass murder.
The 3 Nephi solution remains brutal and crude. At least he could have left the innocent behind to be adopted into righteous society. Or made the wicked infertile for a while before the coming destruction so no innocent children would need to be born into that situation. Or caused them all to be converted like Alma the Younger. Or dispersed them by confounding their language like at the Tower of Babel. Or…
The god of 3 Nephi 8/9 seems too pissed off to think creatively or compassionately.
Bingo, Jonathan.
Yahtzee?
Seriously though, Jonathan, I agree completely.
A better solution Jonathan? Like what?
I offered several solutions that I think would have been better, but I’m not an omniscient god. Even if I can’t find a better way, it doesn’t mean that God shouldn’t have been able to.
I think having mountians crushing cities and raining brimstone from heaven and sinking them into the depths of the sea and annihilating hundreds of people is pretty creative! Gotta give it to Him since I wouldn’t have thought of that!
except “creative” in the destructive sense instead of the…creat…ive sense.