...Jesus was crucified for the wicked sins of the world (after God destroyed everyone a couple times before for being wicked & decided to try something else) but hundreds of thousands in the New World were killed right after he was crucified to atone for their sins?

I know, I know, it's "find the nickel in the corner of a round room" kinda question, but apologists do that a lot....

is that from the Book of Boring?

prolly Most of us have forgotten the Details.

Yes, this is a good point especially when broadened out.

The Mormon theology does a pretty poor job of explaining just what the atonement pays for.

On one hand the repentance process still requires paying for the sins for ourselves.

On the other hand the atonement is supposed to cover our sins.

Yet on the other hand Eternal Punishment doesn't really mean Eternal Punishment, just God's punishment so the atonement isn't really necessary.

While it seems fairly clear that assignment to Celestial vs Terrestial & Telestial is based on your own personal works & worthiness. (D&C 76).

So although the atonement certainly has significant meaning in Mormonism it is very unclear what the practical meaning really is.

I spent a number of email rounds with an apologist claiming to be a Mesoamerican expert. My initial volley included this topic, as described in 3 Nephi 8-10, and not only why did god kill those people, but why can't archeologists find what should be enormous piles of evidence of 13-city destruction in a few days.

His answer was something to do with setting up the utopian christiandom of 4 Nephi needed weeding. And the upheaval/destruction probably didn't really happen in a few days. It was probably just written that way by the redactor Mormon because he either didn't have access to the actual history or he was using short hand.

So his response was that he believes in the book of mormon as far as it is translated correctly?

lol..

kolobian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So his response was that he believes in the book
> of mormon as far as it is translated correctly?
>
> lol..


Yes, over and over that was the implication. If any part of the BoM contradicts established science, then you can't trust what Joe Smith or any other modern profit said about it, and you can't trust that what it says is actually what it meant.

The whole "filled the whole face of the earth/land" phrases are completely left to a small vanishing geography theory. It reminds me of the neil degrasse tyson "ever receding pocket" quote. Except among the apologists, it translates to:

"Lamanites are an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that are inheriting a smaller and smaller piece of promised land geography as time moves on"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2012 01:06PM by Jesus Smith.

I didn't put it very well:

A. God destroys everyone for being wicked with The Flood. Then wipes out Sodom & Gomorrah for too much schtupping, etc.

B. God changes his tune and says "Here's the deal, instead of wiping you bastards out again, I'll just let my favorite son get killed and you get all your crap forgiven because he'll take the rap, OK?"

C. Jesus goes with his dad's wacky plan, gets offed by the Romans, and there's like darkness & an earthquake around Jerusalem, but I don't think anyone else gacks--it's more like the Earth itself is mourning for this great & noble sacrifice.

D. Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, cities are destroyed and a buncha folks go down before the Gipper shows up & does his whole "Dig me, I'm cool, watch me put my magic hands on yer head" speechifying.

That kinda negates the whole forgiveness thing, and would never hold up as a geometry proof. Foget the whole "was it three days or three hours of darkness?" debate, I'd love to have the missionaries show up and ask them: "Hey, why in the BoM does...?"

(Man, what was in my coffee this morning!?!?)

If I remember correctly in the Bible didn't Jesus say:

"Father forgive them for they know not what they do, but wipe out a whole bunch of people on the other side of the world while you're at it."

The purpose for wiping out all those people was not so they could atone for their own sins. They were destroyed simply because they were wicked and needed to be removed from earth; the same as in the days of the Flood. Sins are atoned only through repentence and what jesus did in the garden and on the cross.

Yeah, all that destruction of humanity seems really unChristlike for a guy who ushered in the New Covenant.

And if the wicked had been destroyed so that a civilization of Christian centered peace could flourish, why is the only evidence during that era of large cultures worshipping plurality of gods, and measurable contention amongst themselves?