Violence in Mormon scripture

[_tomhardman]

Should a believing Mormon simply accept violent perspectives that appear in the Book of Mormon and other “restoration” scriptures? Here are some of my thoughts:

http://in-fide-scientiam.com/2013/10/20 ... criptures/

[_Tobin]

Should a believing Mormon simply accept violent perspectives that appear in the Book of Mormon and other “restoration” scriptures? Here are some of my thoughts:

http://in-fide-scientiam.com/2013/10/20 ... criptures/

My view is these are merely primitive anthropomorphic attributions in the scriptures associated with God (i.e. God is some mystical super-human in the sky full of wrath and fury) to explain acts of nature. What I mean by that is something bad happened, so as a result God must have done it (and the associated dialog in the scriptures) in their view. However, it is unlikely God had anything to do with it (it just naturally happened) and association with God is merely their primitive attempts to deal with it, understand it (i.e. God must have wanted it to happen), and explain it (the resulting made up dialog).

[_cognitiveharmony]

Should a believing Mormon simply accept violent perspectives that appear in the Book of Mormon and other “restoration” scriptures? Here are some of my thoughts:

http://in-fide-scientiam.com/2013/10/20 ... criptures/

Very interesting. This is one of the problems I have with both books. I can't see a just God doing some of the things contained in them. There appears to be a moral code full of exceptions. And the God that supposedly created the moral code is somehow exempt from all of it when He chooses but is bound by it at other times of his choosing. I would never trust a leader in my government who made a law to govern me but exempted himself from it (they've actually done this with healthcare and when I say they I mean both sides so no political banter here). It's illogical. God supposedly said vengeance is mine yet when we see "acts of God" as portrayed in the scriptures, they generally affect the innocent as well as the guilty. I for one don't believe in this God.

Of course as far as the Book of Mormon goes, you could use the mopologist reasoning and blame it on the translation. Of course I must be some kind of an idiot because when someone tells me to "gas up the car because we're going to grandma's house", I would naturally assume that not only did we HAVE a car, but we were going to actually USE that car to go to grandmas. Or if someone is writing a revelation in first person of God speaking to them, I would assume that God said what He wanted to say and wouldn't have to come back later and revise and contradict what he had previously said. But I guess I'm just too stupid to understand the mysteries of translating ancient texts. The whole concept is just too intricate and complex for simpletons like me. And don't get me started on understanding revelation, just because God says something, doesn't mean He actually said it or anything. He must have actually said what He meant to say later......or something like that.....like I said, much too complex for a simpleton like me.....

[_bcspace]

Should a believing Mormon simply accept violent perspectives that appear in the Book of Mormon and other “restoration” scriptures? Here are some of my thoughts:

Sure. They accept the violent perspectives that appear in the Bible, so why not the Book of Mormon?

[_tapirrider]

Consider Mormon 5:20. After all of the violence, then the lord will remember the covenant made with them.

But reality does not work like that. Genocide survivors become atheist.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201303040084.html

The LDS church teaches that America's indigenous peoples were not righteous and suffered god's wrath while he cleared his special land for a new people, sweeping away up to 90% of an entire hemisphere's inhabitants beginning in 1492 (1 Nephi chapter 13). The Book of Mormon teaches of a god who brought other nations and gave them power to scatter, smite and take possession of the lands of America's indigenous peoples. It teaches of a god who afflicted innocent women, children and elderly with his wrath.

Since 1492, more people were destroyed over a greater expanse of land than anything found in the Bible excepting the mythical flood. But unlike the Bible's bronze age fables, the actual events of the past 500 years in America are confirmed matters of factual history, having nothing to do with any god.

Accepting the Book of Mormon takes this violence to a level far beyond the Canaanites. The lands promised to Abraham were about the size of New York and Vermont. The Canaanites lived in an area smaller than New Jersey. North and South America combined are larger than all continents except Asia.

Simply accepting the violent perspectives is morally condemnable. Not to mention the desensitization that this can cause to otherwise loving, caring human beings.

And it is not all in the past. The Maya people of Guatemala suffered horrible genocide as recently as the 1980s. It would be morally condemnable to liken the scriptures to the present and believe that they Maya are still suffering in fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecies.