Is the Book of Mormon Satan anachronistic?

[Bobbieaware]

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I don't buy the idea that there's not development. Even in the Book of Mormon it seems to me that Nephi makes clear many practices like the particular form of mikvah they practice are novel.

Also the issue is as much the language used to describe a figure as it is doctrine. However I'm open to particular imagery being revealed earlier but I'd like to see the evidence. I'm not sure a vague appeal to the Book of Moses is helpful for a variety of reasons not the least of which it seems to me much of the JST is an expansion and not necessarily things told Moses.

When I say there was no development, I mean to say that the  Book of Moses informs us Moses and the ancient Patriarchs, going back to Adam, had a very good understanding of the reality of Satan, his role in the war in heaven, his unquenchable hatred of God, his deceptiveness and cunning, and his demonically evil ways. The presumptuous ‘scholarly’ notion that it wasn’t until the times of the New Testament that a more developed picture of Satan and his opposition to God appeared on the scene is contradicted by the Book of Moses, for on its pages we learn that Satan and his ways were clearly understood from the earliest times. Why? Because you cannot effectively teach the gospel of Jesus Christ (Adam and the Patriarchs had a very clear and detailed understanding of the gospel)  without also bringing a knowledge of the oppositional role of Satan and his host into the picture.

I hope you will answer the following question unambiguously and forthrightly: Do you believe God really and actually spoke the following words to Moses when they spoke face to face?

40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.

41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.

42 (These words were spoken unto Moses in the mount, the name of which shall not be known among the children of men. And now they are spoken unto you. Show them not unto any except them that believe. Even so. Amen.) (Moses 1)

Edited December 9, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[clarkgoble]

Quote

When I say there was no development, I mean to say that the  Book of Moses informs us Moses and the ancient Patriarchs, going back to Adam, had a very good understanding of the reality of Satan, his role in the war in heaven, his unquenchable hatred of God, his deceptiveness and cunning, and his demonically evil ways.

But that doesn't address the theological/mythological points he raised, does it?  That's my point.  Also Moses doesn't address the war in heaven. Now if you think those elements were revealed to everyone I'm game. Even if Moses knew something it doesn't follow that he taught it openly.

 

[JarMan]

On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 4:02 PM, clarkgoble said:

Yeah, I don't think most believers would be accepting of that for the same reason I'm not sympathetic to Taves attempt at a middle ground either.

I confess I just don't but the Milton's Satan thesis. For one most of those ideas don't originate with Milton. I know it's common to say that Milton was the first to combine them into a single character. Perhaps that's true as a character in a narrative but in terms of theology it's definitely not true. Further the problem with the Book of Mormon is that the devil only exists as an abstract theological notion. He's never a character.

Consider Augustine in City of God. The devil's a fallen angel. He uses the serpent's tongue to tempt Eve. He seeks the misery of humans. Satan is the dualistic counterpart to God. All human's are Satan's in a way similar to the Book of Mormon. He believes in a physical hell and a City of the Devil that is the dualistic counterpart to the City of God. So there are differences between Augustine (or later medieval figures like Aquinas) and Milton, yet the elements you outline seem all there.

So what elements do you see that are in both the Book of Mormon and Milton that aren't in Augustine? (We'll stick with Augustine rather than earlier figures simply because City of God is so easy to discuss)

It's also worth noting that there are differences from Milton in the Book of Mormon. Milton thought there was a sexual relationship prior to the fall. The Book of Mormon thinks sexuality requires the fall and indeed sees the fall as a good because of that. Milton has sexual activity before the fall to highlight how in the garden it's about love and after the fall is about lust. The Book of Mormon has none of that. Now I've not read Milton since High School, but as I recall for Milton the fall is intrinsically bad. Whereas 2 Nephi 2 has it as a necessary opposition in order to create moral freedom. The devil in 2 Nephi 2 is a bit of a dupe, quite unlike Milton. (And unlike Augustine) While 2 Nephi 2 doesn't have the full development of Eve as hero that later develops in Mormonism, it does have the idea that the fall was a good thing and not a bad thing. It just attributes this more to Adam than to Eve. In Milton Adam eats because he can't bear to be without Eve. In Lehi that's not present. Rather "Adam fell that man might be." Further the only way to have joy wasn't (as in Milton and Augustine) to stay in the garden but to fall. (2:22-23)

So I think one has to account for these big differences too.

I should probably start by clarifying a little bit is how I think Milton fits into this. Milton's Paradise Lost (first published in 1667) is certainly the most well-known drama about this subject matter, but it's not the first. The inspiration for Milton was most likely a 1601 poem by Hugo Grotius called "Adamus Exul." Milton was an admirer of Grotius and a known associate. There are a few other similar dramas written between the times of these two, and probably a late 16th Century Italian drama which has apparently been lost to time. My hypothesis places the Book of Mormon production between about 1620 and 1660 (before Paradise Lost) so any correlation to the Book of Mormon would actually be a correlation to ideas that were being developed by others and then adopted by Milton in his work. In other words, Milton and the book of Mormon composer had some of the same immediate influences.

In getting to know Augustine's City of God just a little bit, I think you're mostly right that Augustine's works contain the major elements of the Book of Mormon Satan and this helps me refine my hypothesis a little bit by pushing back the date for when many of these characteristics were combined into a single Satan-figure. But it does seem reasonably certain that Isaiah 14 (and therefore a fallen angel figure) wasn't associated with Satan until after the NT because Luke 10:18 ("I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven") appears to be what caused this connection to be made.

This article sees Augustine's explanation of man's sinful nature as being caused by original sin, which was indirectly caused by Satan. However, the Book of Mormon is very explicit (in several dozen different verses) that Satan plays an active role in tempting man to sin. The Book of Mormon Satan is a constant, lurking presence, always tempting us and causing great wickedness in the world. Augustine's Satan seems to take a more passive role after succeeding in causing Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. (However, not being well-read in Augustine I am certainly open to additional information to help inform my view.) The Book of Mormon Satan is actually closer to Grotius' Satan in Adamus Exul than it is to Milton's Satan in Paradise Lost, in relation to Satan's role on earth. In Paradise Lost, fallen angels named Sin and Death go to earth to perform evil while Satan stays in hell and is transformed into a serpent. In Adamus Exul, Satan himself goes to earth to wreak havoc on mankind after the fall.

Paradise Lost, however, is more similar to the Book of Mormon than Adamus Exul in some notable ways. Adamus Exul ends with Adam and Eve being cast out and Satan determined to continue his evil work on earth. In Paradise Lost, before being cast out, Adam is shown a vision of the future in which he sees, among other things, the coming of Christ and his atonement. This brings the story of the fall into full circle as now we have a redemption for the sin that was originally committed. Adamus Exul, on the other hand, does not bring us full circle with an explanation of the atonement. The Book of Mormon story of the fall is told in the context of the atonement making it similar to Milton's narrative. Also, Milton's view of the fall as a "fortunate fall" or a "felix culpa" as Augustine described it is found in the Book of Mormon, as well, but not in Adamus Exul.

2 Nephi 2 sets up a cosmological view of mankind's origin and ultimate fate. It goes from creation to the fall to Christ's redemption to our choice to choose to follow either Christ or Satan and finally to our ultimate destination either in hell or eternal life. It sets out the traditional view of heaven above as the abode of the righteous and hell below as a place for the wicked. It emphasizes the free agency given by God and contrasts that with the captivity of the devil. It talks about the necessity for there to be different choices in order for us to exercise our agency. It expounds on Satan's motivation for leading others to evil and discusses man's purpose in life. In short, it's a succinct and complete story of man's origin, existence, purpose, and destination. It's an epic drama condensed down to a compact, discreet unit.

The fact that this story is presented in a distinct unit in the Book of Mormon makes it quite comparable to the 17th Century dramas of Grotius and Milton. Various commentators have noted that Paradise Lost seems to be the origin of the modern concept of Satan, but what I think they are really saying is that Milton was the first to put Satan into a primary role in the epic story of man's existence. Because the Book of Mormon also thrusts Satan into the same epic role, the Book of Mormon seems very 17th Century-ish. Most aspects of the exposition found in 2 Nephi 2 (including some of the unique things) can be found in either of the dramas I've been talking about or in the 1621 Arminian Confession (particularly Chapter 7).

Here are a couple examples of the unique aspects in the Book of Mormon found elsewhere: 

From 2 Nephi 2:16:

Quote

Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

From the Arminian Confession:

Quote

For true permission requires not just that the power of the will be free in itself, but also that the use of the power be free with the power of contrary choice

From 2 Nephi 2:18:

Quote

And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever he sought also the misery of all mankind.

From Satan's opening monologue in Adamus Exul:

Quote

So forth I fare; and, hoping 'gainst belief,

To eclipse intensest misery, by the shade

Of miseries more intense, shall I not gain

Supremacy of ill, and so become

Sole despot, tyrant, and o'er all extend

The immense emblazed autocracy of Hell

 

[clarkgoble]

Quote

This article sees Augustine's explanation of man's sinful nature as being caused by original sin, which was indirectly caused by Satan. However, the Book of Mormon is very explicit (in several dozen different verses) that Satan plays an active role in tempting man to sin. 

We have to distinguish between our propensity to sin and Satan tempting man I think - especially in the Book of Mormon. You're conflating those. The Book of Mormon has two aspects. The natural man who is an enemy to God. Then there is the "enticing" aspect which seems to be based upon taking the Genesis 3 story as typological of humanity. i.e. each of us falls and each of us is enticed. That enticing model with the connection to Genesis 3 is made explicitly by Mormon in various places such as Hel 6:26. The origin of the enticing model appears to be Lehi in 2 Ne 2:16 where freedom is entailed by being enticed by Satan and God. i.e. the enticing is necessary so there is a real choice available.

However I think you err tying this to Luke's treatment of Isaiah 14. The idea of yetzer hara or evil inclination predates the New Testament quite a bit. Now the yetzer hara as a general inclination parallels Benjamin's natural man quite a bit. The question then becomes whether it is anthropomorphized in any way. Certainly by the time of the Talmud they are equated independent of the Christian tradition. "Resh Laqish said: Satan, the evil inclination, and the Angel of Death are all one." (Baba Bathra 16a) Now of course that's fairly late - 2cd century at the earliest - but gives an idea of what's going on. Now in most early Judaism this is treated as either a metaphysical force or at least a part of the human heart. However many scholars see the yetzer hara being an internal demon that develops from Babylonian sources. So by the time of 1 Chron 21:1 & 2 Sam 24:1 we have the yetzer hara being quasi-personified as an accuser/adversary (translated as Satan in the KJV).

While I think that undermines the "it all came from Augustine" view, the problem remains figuring out what form these took in pre-exilic times. Again there's a paucity of data so we should be careful. Further, again, Lehi seems to be doing his own reasoning rather that reflecting community views given the phrasing in 2 Nephi 2. 

It seems to me the believer in a traditional view of the Book of Mormon has two choices. One is to argue this was part of pre-exilic Israel but has been obscured - partially by people assuming all dualism and angelology originated in the exile. The second is to see it through the lens of a new exegesis of Isaiah by Nephi and Lehi which saw the themes of Assyria/Babylon as applying not just historically but also cosmically and at the individual level. Now that this is their hermeneutic principle seems clear. They get the idea of individual salvation out of Isaiah clearly. If that's the case then that would explain Lehi's use of Isaiah 14 easily. He's taking the Assyrian king as a type of cosmology and thus a proto-angelology but also as an explanation of the evil inclination creating a personification metaphor. i.e. the Nephite development of Satan comes our of Isaiah. This would also explain why the Satan passages all see Satan as a parallel nation.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

We have to distinguish between our propensity to sin and Satan tempting man I think - especially in the Book of Mormon. You're conflating those. The Book of Mormon has two aspects. The natural man who is an enemy to God. Then there is the "enticing" aspect which seems to be based upon taking the Genesis 3 story as typological of humanity. i.e. each of us falls and each of us is enticed. That enticing model with the connection to Genesis 3 is made explicitly by Mormon in various places such as Hel 6:26. The origin of the enticing model appears to be Lehi in 2 Ne 2:16 where freedom is entailed by being enticed by Satan and God. i.e. the enticing is necessary so there is a real choice available.

I don't think the Book of Mormon says that man has a propensity to sin. That is Augustine's position, as I understand it, and the view of most of Christianity. King Benjamin's "natural man" is defined exclusively by what he hasn't done (accept Christ's atonement), not by what he has done (actual sins) or by his nature (propensity to sin). Benjamin's natural man is simply someone who has not exercised his moral agency by coming to Christ. Moral agency is part of God's grace granted to man and requires opposing choices in order to be exercised. Thus we constantly see Satan present in the Book of Mormon providing an alternate choice.

The Augustinian model for explaining the existence of sin, then, is that man's nature is inherently corrupt because of the fall. The Arminian model for explaining the existence of sin is based on God's gift of moral agency and on the existence of good and evil options. If I understand correctly, you are reading the Book of Mormon model as being a hybrid of these two systems since you are associating the natural man with the Augustinian model. I read the Book of Mormon as being identical to the Arminian model because I don't think that the natural man as described in the Book of Mormon has a propensity to sin.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

However I think you err tying this to Luke's treatment of Isaiah 14. The idea of yetzer hara or evil inclination predates the New Testament quite a bit. Now the yetzer hara as a general inclination parallels Benjamin's natural man quite a bit. The question then becomes whether it is anthropomorphized in any way. Certainly by the time of the Talmud they are equated independent of the Christian tradition. "Resh Laqish said: Satan, the evil inclination, and the Angel of Death are all one." (Baba Bathra 16a) Now of course that's fairly late - 2cd century at the earliest - but gives an idea of what's going on. Now in most early Judaism this is treated as either a metaphysical force or at least a part of the human heart. However many scholars see the yetzer hara being an internal demon that develops from Babylonian sources. So by the time of 1 Chron 21:1 & 2 Sam 24:1 we have the yetzer hara being quasi-personified as an accuser/adversary (translated as Satan in the KJV).

By bringing up Luke 10:18 I am not trying to analyze Luke's view of Satan. I am simply identifying the verse that later Christians first used in associating Isaiah 14 with Satan. In other words, without Luke 10:18 we may not have a concept of Satan as a fallen angel.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

While I think that undermines the "it all came from Augustine" view, the problem remains figuring out what form these took in pre-exilic times. Again there's a paucity of data so we should be careful. Further, again, Lehi seems to be doing his own reasoning rather that reflecting community views given the phrasing in 2 Nephi 2. 

It seems to me the believer in a traditional view of the Book of Mormon has two choices. One is to argue this was part of pre-exilic Israel but has been obscured - partially by people assuming all dualism and angelology originated in the exile. The second is to see it through the lens of a new exegesis of Isaiah by Nephi and Lehi which saw the themes of Assyria/Babylon as applying not just historically but also cosmically and at the individual level. Now that this is their hermeneutic principle seems clear. They get the idea of individual salvation out of Isaiah clearly. If that's the case then that would explain Lehi's use of Isaiah 14 easily. He's taking the Assyrian king as a type of cosmology and thus a proto-angelology but also as an explanation of the evil inclination creating a personification metaphor. i.e. the Nephite development of Satan comes our of Isaiah. This would also explain why the Satan passages all see Satan as a parallel nation.

I agree with your assessment here. But I see both "choices" as being almost purely speculative.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

I don't think the Book of Mormon says that man has a propensity to sin. That is Augustine's position, as I understand it, and the view of most of Christianity. King Benjamin's "natural man" is defined exclusively by what he hasn't done (accept Christ's atonement), not by what he has done (actual sins) or by his nature (propensity to sin). Benjamin's natural man is simply someone who has not exercised his moral agency by coming to Christ. Moral agency is part of God's grace granted to man and requires opposing choices in order to be exercised. Thus we constantly see Satan present in the Book of Mormon providing an alternate choice.

I think Augustine's point isn't just that we have a propensity but that we inherit moral guilt. So it's much stronger than the Book of Mormon claim, which I think can be easily reconciled to biological instincts not tied to moral deliberation. 

To your point that the natural man is determined negatively, I think that's true. I'm not sure that invalidates what I said which was more about the implications of being in that natural state. Mosiah 16:3-5 seems to indicate this carnal nature. Now I certainly agree the choice is turning to Christ. However I'm not sure it's Satan providing the alternative choice so much as it is making the alternative choice ends up putting one into Satan's control. But this seems a bit more complicated than you suggest. While in some places the Book of Mormon personifies the evil inclination, in other ways it's created a kind of psychological state determined by where that state puts one in the final judgment. So choosing wicked give the evil inclination power over you which leads to judgment to hell. That seems to be the message of say Alma 34. There you've become subject to the devil and he seals you to him as a kind of dark parallel to turning to Christ and receiving his seal. However it's all due to the spirit you follow, which there doesn't appear to be spirit in the sense of metaphysic power so much as spirit in the sense of way of being.

Now of course there are passages where, unlike Alma 34, the language is more tied to personification. Especially with texts that are more eschatological such as Nephi's. But I think we should keep the distinctions in mind.

My personal view is that there are multiple ways of talking about this in the Book of Mormon rather than a single univocal mythology or theology.

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

By bringing up Luke 10:18 I am not trying to analyze Luke's view of Satan. I am simply identifying the verse that later Christians first used in associating Isaiah 14 with Satan. In other words, without Luke 10:18 we may not have a concept of Satan as a fallen angel.

Right. My point is that the theology of fallen angels significantly predates Luke with the Enochian corpuses. While 2 Enoch with it's more explicit connection of Satanael and the fallen angels  is dated to the 1st century I think most date 1 Enoch to a few centuries earlier. (At least the Watchers portion) Initially there wasn't a connection between the Genesis story and the fallen angels story. Each also had a fairly unique conception of the origin of evil. By the time of the first century with Luke, 2 Enoch and many other texts the connection was reasonably in place. By the time of Revelation the author is heavily borrowing from these already in place traditions. 

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

I agree with your assessment here. But I see both "choices" as being almost purely speculative.

Without texts from which to provide parallels, it's all speculation. I'd be the first to admit. As I've mentioned a few times in this thread I do think it important to note that both Lehi and Nephi present many things (the Christological baptism, the interpretation of Isaiah 14) as novel readings.

That said, I do think Nephi's typological reading of Isaiah along the various levels (near past/near future history, future eschatological history, individual psyche/salvation, national typology, cosmological) all occurring simultaneously is significant and not given enough attention. That style of reading with an emphasis on Isaiah beyond other texts seems to set in place most of the Nephite theology.

Edited December 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think Augustine's point isn't just that we have a propensity but that we inherit moral guilt. So it's much stronger than the Book of Mormon claim, which I think can be easily reconciled to biological instincts not tied to moral deliberation. 

Well, yes. I was trying to demonstrate where Augustine differed from the Book of Mormon. . . particularly on the issue of the role of Satan. The point is that since Augustine's fallen man is so corrupt there's really no role for Satan. The Book of Mormon fallen man is more or less morally neutral. Your point about biological instincts, from "carnal" and "sensual" presumably, is well taken--though I think it doesn't significantly change my overall perception. The Book of Mormon needs an ever-present tempter to help explain why morally neutral people sin. I get the sense that for most of Christian history Augustine's view of fallen man was predominant, so the Book of Mormon view is somewhat unique. This supports my hypothesis of a 17th Century production since we see a quite similar unique view of fallen man among the Arminians.

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

However I'm not sure it's Satan providing the alternative choice so much as it is making the alternative choice ends up putting one into Satan's control. But this seems a bit more complicated than you suggest. While in some places the Book of Mormon personifies the evil inclination, in other ways it's created a kind of psychological state determined by where that state puts one in the final judgment. So choosing wicked give the evil inclination power over you which leads to judgment to hell. That seems to be the message of say Alma 34. There you've become subject to the devil and he seals you to him as a kind of dark parallel to turning to Christ and receiving his seal. However it's all due to the spirit you follow, which there doesn't appear to be spirit in the sense of metaphysic power so much as spirit in the sense of way of being.

Now of course there are passages where, unlike Alma 34, the language is more tied to personification. Especially with texts that are more eschatological such as Nephi's. But I think we should keep the distinctions in mind.

My personal view is that there are multiple ways of talking about this in the Book of Mormon rather than a single univocal mythology or theology.

The distinction between Satan gaining control of man as a result of man's own actions, and Satan as instigator to evil is a fair distinction. I will need to think about the former and how it fits into my hypothesis, but as for the latter, the Book of Mormon does offer a great number of examples of Satan leading the charge, so to speak. So I acknowledge it is more complicated, but I still think Satan's role as I've described it so far is accurate (if incomplete) and also critical in addressing the existence of evil in the world.

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Right. My point is that the theology of fallen angels significantly predates Luke with the Enochian corpuses. While 2 Enoch with it's more explicit connection of Satanael and the fallen angels  is dated to the 1st century I think most date 1 Enoch to a few centuries earlier. (At least the Watchers portion) Initially there wasn't a connection between the Genesis story and the fallen angels story. Each also had a fairly unique conception of the origin of evil. By the time of the first century with Luke, 2 Enoch and many other texts the connection was reasonably in place. By the time of Revelation the author is heavily borrowing from these already in place traditions. 

Well, this analysis makes sense. But it tends to support my overall view that the Book of Mormon Satan is anachronistic.

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Without texts from which to provide parallels, it's all speculation. I'd be the first to admit. As I've mentioned a few times in this thread I do think it important to note that both Lehi and Nephi present many things (the Christological baptism, the interpretation of Isaiah 14) as novel readings.

My fascination with a 17th Century hypothesis is partially related to the fact that there are ample texts available for comparison. There are ample texts for a 19th Century comparison, as well, and people have been attempting to draw those parallels from the beginning but I've been underwhelmed by these efforts. The sources may all be there in the 19th Century, but they're scattered such that Joseph or one of his contemporaries would have needed access to a great number of libraries in Europe and America. The beauty of 17th Century Dutch Arminianism is that all the sources exist in one place at one time (according to my hypothesis) so it's quite easy to imagine someone having access to all the information needed.

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

My fascination with a 17th Century hypothesis is partially related to the fact that there are ample texts available for comparison.

The problem of course is like the old joke about the guy only looking for his lost keys under lamp posts because that's where the light is.

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

Well, this analysis makes sense. But it tends to support my overall view that the Book of Mormon Satan is anachronistic.

As I said, I think we have to be careful what we mean by anachronistic. 

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

Well, yes. I was trying to demonstrate where Augustine differed from the Book of Mormon. . . particularly on the issue of the role of Satan. The point is that since Augustine's fallen man is so corrupt there's really no role for Satan. The Book of Mormon fallen man is more or less morally neutral. Your point about biological instincts, from "carnal" and "sensual" presumably, is well taken--though I think it doesn't significantly change my overall perception. The Book of Mormon needs an ever-present tempter to help explain why morally neutral people sin. I get the sense that for most of Christian history Augustine's view of fallen man was predominant, so the Book of Mormon view is somewhat unique. This supports my hypothesis of a 17th Century production since we see a quite similar unique view of fallen man among the Arminians.

I'm not sure it needs a tempter. Some arguments need a tempter while others don't. That is I don't think there's an univocal position in the text.

[Bobbieaware]

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

Well, yes. I was trying to demonstrate where Augustine differed from the Book of Mormon. . . particularly on the issue of the role of Satan. The point is that since Augustine's fallen man is so corrupt there's really no role for Satan. The Book of Mormon fallen man is more or less morally neutral. Your point about biological instincts, from "carnal" and "sensual" presumably, is well taken--though I think it doesn't significantly change my overall perception. The Book of Mormon needs an ever-present tempter to help explain why morally neutral people sin. I get the sense that for most of Christian history Augustine's view of fallen man was predominant, so the Book of Mormon view is somewhat unique. This supports my hypothesis of a 17th Century production since we see a quite similar unique view of fallen man among the Arminians.

The distinction between Satan gaining control of man as a result of man's own actions, and Satan as instigator to evil is a fair distinction. I will need to think about the former and how it fits into my hypothesis, but as for the latter, the Book of Mormon does offer a great number of examples of Satan leading the charge, so to speak. So I acknowledge it is more complicated, but I still think Satan's role as I've described it so far is accurate (if incomplete) and also critical in addressing the existence of evil in the world.

Well, this analysis makes sense. But it tends to support my overall view that the Book of Mormon Satan is anachronistic.

My fascination with a 17th Century hypothesis is partially related to the fact that there are ample texts available for comparison. There are ample texts for a 19th Century comparison, as well, and people have been attempting to draw those parallels from the beginning but I've been underwhelmed by these efforts. The sources may all be there in the 19th Century, but they're scattered such that Joseph or one of his contemporaries would have needed access to a great number of libraries in Europe and America. The beauty of 17th Century Dutch Arminianism is that all the sources exist in one place at one time (according to my hypothesis) so it's quite easy to imagine someone having access to all the information needed.

Do you believe the Book of Mormon’s presentation of the doctrine of Christ is also anachronistic? 

 

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem of course is like the old joke about the guy only looking for his lost keys under lamp posts because that's where the light is.

I'm not just looking in the light. It's just that in the light is the only place I'm finding anything. The bigger folly is refusing to look where the light is.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

As I said, I think we have to be careful what we mean by anachronistic. 

I don't know what you mean by this.

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure it needs a tempter. Some arguments need a tempter while others don't. That is I don't think there's an univocal position in the text.

Without a tempter there is no way to explain the existence of evil. Since the Book of Mormon fallen man is not inherently evil, evil has to be introduced to man as one of the options.  Augustine’s Satan doesnt need to play the role of tempter on earth since Augustine’s fallen man is inherently evil to begin with. 

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by JarMan

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Do you believe the Book of Mormon’s presentation of the doctrine of Christ is also anachronistic? 

 

The concept of a Messiah is not anachronistic. But the details of Christ’s birth, life, death, and probably even the resurrection are, I think, anachronistic. However, I’m open to sound explanation of OT sources to help me understand this issue better. 

[Bobbieaware]

17 minutes ago, JarMan said:

The concept of a Messiah is not anachronistic. But the details of Christ’s birth, life, death, and probably even the resurrection are, I think, anachronistic. However, I’m open to sound explanation of OT sources to help me understand this issue better. 

So that I might better understand where you’re coming from before pursuing possible further dialogue, I have two questions for you:

1) On a scale of 0% to 100%, what do you think the chances are that Jesus of Nazareth really is the resurrected literal Son of God whose sacrificial suffering and death atoned for the sins of the world?

2) On a scale of 0% to 100%, what do you think the chances are that Satan is a real?

Edited December 12, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[JarMan]

18 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So that I might better understand where you’re coming from before pursuing possible further dialogue, I have two questions for you:

1) On a scale of 0% to 100%, what do you think the chances are that Jesus of Nazareth really is the resurrected literal Son of God whose sacrificial suffering and death atoned for the sins of the world?

2) On a scale of 0% to 100%, what do you think the chances are that Satan is a real?

I take both the existence of Jesus and Satan on faith. I couldn't give you a hard number. But I hold open the possibility that our Mormon mythos is one of many leading people toward God.

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, JarMan said:

I don't know what you mean by this.

It's the difference I mentioned earlier in this thread between making a claim for what a society believes versus making a claim for what a religious innovator believes. Anachronism is a problem for claims about what Israel believes or what technologies or animals say mesoAmerica had. So it's fair I think to raise the specter of horses, bows, swords, metal, or deutero-Isaiah relative to the Book of Mormon as anachronisms. If the text present certain things as new innovations (place of Jesus Christ due to Nephi's vision, place of Satan due to Lehi's unique exegesis in 2 Nephi 2) then those are far less of examples of anachronisms. People may see them as problematic for other reasons of course. So I'm just making a semantic point.

18 hours ago, JarMan said:

Without a tempter there is no way to explain the existence of evil. Since the Book of Mormon fallen man is not inherently evil, evil has to be introduced to man as one of the options.  Augustine’s Satan doesnt need to play the role of tempter on earth since Augustine’s fallen man is inherently evil to begin with. 

I'm not following you here. In the late second temple period you had two main theories for evil. One is Satan tied to the origin of evil the other is the fall as tied to the origin of evil. Finally an other one, more associated with platonism, is evil as the privation of good. You can find all three traditions in the Book of Mormon in various ways as well as the earlier pre-exilic idea of evil as a eternal pre-existent aspect of the universe God must constantly beat back through creation. Each view of evil tends to have its own mythology associated with it.

What you say of Augustine is true of course. But I'm here not really talking about him.

With regards to the need for a tempter, I don't think the Book of Mormon necessarily has that as the origin of evil but rather as a necessity for freedom. That is to be free one must be enticed by both sides. This is part of Book of Mormon dualism, especially as it originates in Lehi. However I'm not sure I'd call that the origin of evil. Rather it's a kind of utility for evil.

[JarMan]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not following you here. In the late second temple period you had two main theories for evil. One is Satan tied to the origin of evil the other is the fall as tied to the origin of evil. Finally an other one, more associated with platonism, is evil as the privation of good. You can find all three traditions in the Book of Mormon in various ways as well as the earlier pre-exilic idea of evil as a eternal pre-existent aspect of the universe God must constantly beat back through creation. Each view of evil tends to have its own mythology associated with it.

What you say of Augustine is true of course. But I'm here not really talking about him.

With regards to the need for a tempter, I don't think the Book of Mormon necessarily has that as the origin of evil but rather as a necessity for freedom. That is to be free one must be enticed by both sides. This is part of Book of Mormon dualism, especially as it originates in Lehi. However I'm not sure I'd call that the origin of evil. Rather it's a kind of utility for evil.

I don't know about the late second temple period, but I know the Arminians were involved in a debate about how sin came into the world. The existence of sin presents an apparent paradox since God is perfectly good, God created everything, and yet sin exists. Several explanations were proposed. The Arminians presented their own explanation in their 1621 Confession:

Quote

Sin was brought into the world on this account. God gave to the man, being created with such faculties as we have said, a law of not eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, placed in the middle of the garden, under the pain of eternal death and various other miseries. That law was broken, however, by Adam, together with his wife, who was seduced by Satan and deceived by his false persuasions.

It was broken, I say, not so much by a spontaneous will, but by a truly free one. Because he was not forced either by any outward violent impulse or some secret and hidden determination or necessity (whether proceeding from God [by decree], or the devil) to will to pluck or eat the forbidden fruit. Nor did he fall into sin through any subtraction or negation of some divine virtue or action [such as grace] necessary for avoiding sin (which some amateurishly call permission or an efficacious permissive decree).

Finally, he was not impelled or moved to transgression by God through any command, order or instinct, however secret or hidden (namely, that God might have an opportunity of exercising His forbearing mercy, and punitive justice), as some perversely teach. For God would truly, properly and especially, in fact solely, be the author of sin. Indeed, such a transgression would not be a true sin, neither could the man by that sin be truly guilty or justly miserable.

Furthermore, God was not seeking from this an opportunity of exercising His true mercy or true justice. But the man committed this sin by the pure liberty of his will, immune to any internal or external necessity. On God’s part, only His permission entered in, and on the devil’s, only his persuasion, which the man could easily have resisted and not given ear, and the external beauty and grace of the fruit going before and enticing.

The previous passage identifies 4 things that existed in the explanation for how sin came in to the world:

1) free will, 2) a law, 3) opposing options (the Tree of Life is the implied opposite choice, and the necessity of an opposite choice is outlined in another part of the Confession), and 4) a tempter. The Arminians thus developed an explanation for the existence of sin using the Garden of Eden story. Based on their rejection of several other explanations for the existence of sin (alluded to in the passage) theirs seems to have been a novel interpretation.

We see the same 4 elements present in 2 Nephi 2 as follows: 1) Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. 2) And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. 3)  it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. 4) Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

Reason dictates that the first three items are indisputably necessary in order for sin to exist. The fourth one, the subject of our current discussion--a tempter, is a tougher one to characterize as being indisputably necessary. After all, couldn't Adam and Eve have chosen to eat the fruit of their own accord? Episcopius (the author of the Confession) doesn't seem to think so. After all, he adopted the Garden of Eden story as the basis of his explanation, and the story is meaningless without the existence of the serpent. In other words, by using the Garden of Eden story to explain the existence of sin the existence of a tempter becomes a necessary part of the explanation.

As you have pointed out, the reason given for an enticer in the Book of Mormon is so that men could have free agency. Since free agency is necessary for sin, a tempter (being necessary for agency) is also necessary for sin to exist. Satan appears again and again in the Book of Mormon in the role of a tempter. This seems to be a reasonable, probably even a necessary, extension of 2 Nephi 2 since sin also appear again and again.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the parallels are just so striking between the Book of Mormon and the Arminians. Particularly since we have so many other Christian works as a baseline to compare to the Book of Mormon. As I attempted to explain earlier in the thread, parallels are only significant if they tend to separate themselves from the baseline. And once you find multiple parallels that defy the baseline I think you have the basis for a hypothesis.

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, JarMan said:

1) free will, 2) a law, 3) opposing options (the Tree of Life is the implied opposite choice, and the necessity of an opposite choice is outlined in another part of the Confession), and 4) a tempter. The Arminians thus developed an explanation for the existence of sin using the Garden of Eden story. Based on their rejection of several other explanations for the existence of sin (alluded to in the passage) theirs seems to have been a novel interpretation.

Again that's really not that novel and can be found in the 2cd temple period as well as after. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again that's really not that novel and can be found in the 2cd temple period as well as after. 

It seems to have been novel in the post-reformation period. Could you point me to some earlier sources?

[clarkgoble]

54 minutes ago, JarMan said:

It seems to have been novel in the post-reformation period. Could you point me to some earlier sources?

It's the theology of Eastern Orthodoxy although I'd have to check to when each point was developed. But I'd assume it was in place by 1000 AD.

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's the theology of Eastern Orthodoxy although I'd have to check to when each point was developed. But I'd assume it was in place by 1000 AD.

I would expect the vast majority of doctrinal and philosophical positions taken by the Arminians to have been developed in the past. Hugo Grotius (the most prominent among them) had a vast knowledge of ancient sources. He was proficient in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and other languages and cited many of the ancient writers in his treatises. Commentators over the years have sometimes gently jabbed at him for "showing off" because he didn't hesitate to liberally cite the ancient writers. Grotius is considered to have been a genius among geniuses in the 17th Century comparable to other notables of the century such as Newton, Leibniz, Milton, Descartes, Spinoza, Pascal, Locke, Hobbes, Galileo, and Shakespeare.

Grotius used his vast knowledge of ancient and contemporary sources and his superior intellect to develop a philosophy of religion and government that I think is clearly similar to Book of Mormon religion and government. His ideas, of course, didn't come forth in a vacuum. His ideas couldn't have come forth in a vacuum. They are dependent on the world he lived in and on the ideas developed by the earlier giants whose shoulders he stood upon. Grotius' ideas would make absolutely no sense at all if not for the historical context of his day combined with the ancient ideas from which he drew heavily upon. And that is why the Book of Mormon does not appear to me to be an ancient work. There are just too many ideas in the Book of Mormon that hadn't been developed yet. . . couldn't have been developed yet. We've been talking about a very narrow range of ideas in this discussion, and one thing you've helped me realize is how much the Arminian view was shaped by past commentators. I was viewing the ideas primarily as being influenced by the immediate controversies of the day since I am more familiar with reformation-era and later writings. But it doesn't really matter where the ideas came from. Development is development.

[Anonymous Mormon]

On 12/14/2017 at 6:41 PM, JarMan said:

. . . And that is why the Book of Mormon does not appear to me to be an ancient work. There are just too many ideas in the Book of Mormon that hadn't been developed yet. . . couldn't have been developed yet. We've been talking about a very narrow range of ideas in this discussion, and one thing you've helped me realize is how much the Arminian view was shaped by past commentators. I was viewing the ideas primarily as being influenced by the immediate controversies of the day since I am more familiar with reformation-era and later writings. But it doesn't really matter where the ideas came from. Development is development.

There are plenty of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, but I sure don't see the concept of Satan or the devil as being one of them. Instead, just like the concept of Jesus Christ, it is all about revelation.

The first mentions of the term devil and Satan in the BoM are spoken by an Angel:

-1 Ne 11:31 - Nephi sees in a vision "And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out."
 (This first idea of unclean spirits / devils (plural, not referring to Satan) seems to be readily available in old testament - just check the word Soothsayer)

-1 Ne 12:17, 19 - An angel introduces Nephi to the concept of Satan tempting and blinding man - "And the mists of darkness are the temptations of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost."  & "...and because of the pride of my seed, and the temptations of the devil, I beheld . . ."
(An angel introduces Nephi to the idea of Satan tempting and blinding man - this could be a brand new concept to Nephi or something he already was familiar with, we don't know)

-1 Ne 13:6 - "And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it."
(An angel presents the idea of Satan not just tempting, but actually founding complete ideas and organizations)

-1 Ne 13:29 - "yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them."
(The angel uses the name of Satan in conjunction with the Devil - potentially the first time Nephi heard the two names / ideas together)

And it keeps going from there (verses 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 17, of Chapter 14, verse 35 of Chapter 15)

 

Then in 2 Ne 2, Lehi is discussing about the Devil being the snake in the garden of Eden and says:  "And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God."

Now this is something that Lehi, as a prophet has learned based upon revelation (whether he had it or Nephi shared it with him) and visitations from an Angel, in conjunction with his study of the Brass Plates. It seems to be a new idea, something that the majority of his audience (his sons or sons of Ishmael), wouldn't have known, so he has to couch the idea in terms of telling them that this is something he has gathered from reading the scriptures. If the idea of Satan in the garden was common knowledge, he wouldn't have bothered to preface it with "based upon what I have read," any more than I would bother to preface it when talking about Satan in the garden in Sunday School.

Now I haven't read Milton or Augustine or Grotius and I don't even know who the Arminians are. I can't tell you if they were inspired by God to introduce concepts about Satan to the world or if they stole the ideas from earlier people who knew/discovered these truths.

But, whether or not you believe the Book of Mormon is true, I don't think you can list Satan as an Anachronism, because the concepts are all either a) revealed by an angel or b) prefaced with an explanation that it's new doctrine.  

If God asked a group of Jews to flee Jerusalem in 600 BC and then shortly after they left introduced the idea of Jesus Christ to them so that they would be Christians by the time they reached the Americas, then I clearly believe he could and did also reveal Satan to them because as they taught, "There is opposition in all things." And the actual written record backs up that Satan was revealed to them. Satan is no more of an anachronism than the idea of Jesus is, because both are revealed. And this revelation of Jesus, Satan, and the plan of Salvation is the central point and entire thesis of the entire Book of Mormon and what makes it so powerful.

 

 

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

There are plenty of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, but I sure don't see the concept of Satan or the devil as being one of them. Instead, just like the concept of Jesus Christ, it is all about revelation.

The first mentions of the term devil and Satan in the BoM are spoken by an Angel:

-1 Ne 11:31 - Nephi sees in a vision "And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out."
 (This first idea of unclean spirits / devils (plural, not referring to Satan) seems to be readily available in old testament - just check the word Soothsayer)

-1 Ne 12:17, 19 - An angel introduces Nephi to the concept of Satan tempting and blinding man - "And the mists of darkness are the temptations of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost."  & "...and because of the pride of my seed, and the temptations of the devil, I beheld . . ."
(An angel introduces Nephi to the idea of Satan tempting and blinding man - this could be a brand new concept to Nephi or something he already was familiar with, we don't know)

-1 Ne 13:6 - "And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it."
(An angel presents the idea of Satan not just tempting, but actually founding complete ideas and organizations)

-1 Ne 13:29 - "yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them."
(The angel uses the name of Satan in conjunction with the Devil - potentially the first time Nephi heard the two names / ideas together)

And it keeps going from there (verses 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 17, of Chapter 14, verse 35 of Chapter 15)

 

Then in 2 Ne 2, Lehi is discussing about the Devil being the snake in the garden of Eden and says:  "And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God."

Now this is something that Lehi, as a prophet has learned based upon revelation (whether he had it or Nephi shared it with him) and visitations from an Angel, in conjunction with his study of the Brass Plates. It seems to be a new idea, something that the majority of his audience (his sons or sons of Ishmael), wouldn't have known, so he has to couch the idea in terms of telling them that this is something he has gathered from reading the scriptures. If the idea of Satan in the garden was common knowledge, he wouldn't have bothered to preface it with "based upon what I have read," any more than I would bother to preface it when talking about Satan in the garden in Sunday School.

Now I haven't read Milton or Augustine or Grotius and I don't even know who the Arminians are. I can't tell you if they were inspired by God to introduce concepts about Satan to the world or if they stole the ideas from earlier people who knew/discovered these truths.

But, whether or not you believe the Book of Mormon is true, I don't think you can list Satan as an Anachronism, because the concepts are all either a) revealed by an angel or b) prefaced with an explanation that it's new doctrine.  

If God asked a group of Jews to flee Jerusalem in 600 BC and then shortly after they left introduced the idea of Jesus Christ to them so that they would be Christians by the time they reached the Americas, then I clearly believe he could and did also reveal Satan to them because as they taught, "There is opposition in all things." And the actual written record backs up that Satan was revealed to them. Satan is no more of an anachronism than the idea of Jesus is, because both are revealed. And this revelation of Jesus, Satan, and the plan of Salvation is the central point and entire thesis of the entire Book of Mormon and what makes it so powerful.

 

 

I pointed all of this out to JarMan on earlier posts on this thread but he was not Impressed. Apparently, in spite of Nephite revelation, he will continue to believe the Book of Mormon narrative on Satan is anachronistic until it can be be amply demonstrated that the Old Testament prophets of the Holy Land knew as much about the Satan as did the Nephites. It seems explanations based on revelation hold zero weight in the realm of scholarship. I even rehearsed that the Book of Moses, as originally written, reveals Moses and Enoch knew as much about Satan as the Nephites did, but that tact also didn’t make a dent. It appears that the gospel principle of divine revelation and scholarship are mutually exclusive.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[clarkgoble]

On 12/14/2017 at 6:41 PM, JarMan said:

Grotius' ideas would make absolutely no sense at all if not for the historical context of his day combined with the ancient ideas from which he drew heavily upon. And that is why the Book of Mormon does not appear to me to be an ancient work. There are just too many ideas in the Book of Mormon that hadn't been developed yet. . . couldn't have been developed yet.

I confess this seems a problematic statement. You agree they aren't original to that time yet say the Book of Mormon could have gotten them any other way. To me that just is an other way of saying your argument doesn't work. You have to find something that only occurs with the Arminians. As soon as you acknowledge that's not the case you're argument pretty well dries up.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess this seems a problematic statement. You agree they aren't original to that time yet say the Book of Mormon could have gotten them any other way. To me that just is an other way of saying your argument doesn't work. You have to find something that only occurs with the Arminians. As soon as you acknowledge that's not the case you're argument pretty well dries up.

I think you are not acting in good faith towards my argument. My underlying assumption is that any "system" of religious beliefs has a history of development from cultural and other, related religious traditions. Religious systems don't suddenly come into existence from a vacuum. The Arminian system was a product of its time as all systems are, which means that they borrowed from others and probably developed unique concepts (reactively) based on the specific challenges of their time. They brought all of these ideas together into a coherent system--and that is what is unique--not necessarily any individual idea. That this same convergence of ideas--this religious system--is also found in the Book of Mormon strongly implies that the Book of Mormon system is also a product of the same or, at least a similar, history of development. At the same time, there is no substantial evidence that shows a similar system under development in pre-exilic Israel.

 

[DonBradley]

Just saw this thread.

Yes, he's anachronistic. But do you dare tell him that?!

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

There are plenty of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, but I sure don't see the concept of Satan or the devil as being one of them. Instead, just like the concept of Jesus Christ, it is all about revelation.

The first mentions of the term devil and Satan in the BoM are spoken by an Angel:

-1 Ne 11:31 - Nephi sees in a vision "And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were healed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out."
 (This first idea of unclean spirits / devils (plural, not referring to Satan) seems to be readily available in old testament - just check the word Soothsayer)

-1 Ne 12:17, 19 - An angel introduces Nephi to the concept of Satan tempting and blinding man - "And the mists of darkness are the temptations of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost."  & "...and because of the pride of my seed, and the temptations of the devil, I beheld . . ."
(An angel introduces Nephi to the idea of Satan tempting and blinding man - this could be a brand new concept to Nephi or something he already was familiar with, we don't know)

-1 Ne 13:6 - "And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it."
(An angel presents the idea of Satan not just tempting, but actually founding complete ideas and organizations)

-1 Ne 13:29 - "yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them."
(The angel uses the name of Satan in conjunction with the Devil - potentially the first time Nephi heard the two names / ideas together)

And it keeps going from there (verses 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 17, of Chapter 14, verse 35 of Chapter 15)

 

Then in 2 Ne 2, Lehi is discussing about the Devil being the snake in the garden of Eden and says:  "And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God."

Now this is something that Lehi, as a prophet has learned based upon revelation (whether he had it or Nephi shared it with him) and visitations from an Angel, in conjunction with his study of the Brass Plates. It seems to be a new idea, something that the majority of his audience (his sons or sons of Ishmael), wouldn't have known, so he has to couch the idea in terms of telling them that this is something he has gathered from reading the scriptures. If the idea of Satan in the garden was common knowledge, he wouldn't have bothered to preface it with "based upon what I have read," any more than I would bother to preface it when talking about Satan in the garden in Sunday School.

Now I haven't read Milton or Augustine or Grotius and I don't even know who the Arminians are. I can't tell you if they were inspired by God to introduce concepts about Satan to the world or if they stole the ideas from earlier people who knew/discovered these truths.

But, whether or not you believe the Book of Mormon is true, I don't think you can list Satan as an Anachronism, because the concepts are all either a) revealed by an angel or b) prefaced with an explanation that it's new doctrine.  

If God asked a group of Jews to flee Jerusalem in 600 BC and then shortly after they left introduced the idea of Jesus Christ to them so that they would be Christians by the time they reached the Americas, then I clearly believe he could and did also reveal Satan to them because as they taught, "There is opposition in all things." And the actual written record backs up that Satan was revealed to them. Satan is no more of an anachronism than the idea of Jesus is, because both are revealed. And this revelation of Jesus, Satan, and the plan of Salvation is the central point and entire thesis of the entire Book of Mormon and what makes it so powerful.

 

 

You are making the same mistake that was made earlier in the thread, which is that you are citing a source to support the validity of that very same source. In essence, you are saying the Book of Mormon is not anachronistic because the Book of Mormon says it is not anachronistic. You may as well say that the Book of Mormon must be true because it says it is true.

You are not properly accounting for the role of development in religious ideas. The Book of Mormon is just a snapshot in time of religious ideas. The church quickly moved beyond several of the ideas in the Book of Mormon such that they are now outdated, meaning that we have since received revelation that contradicts or significantly adds to the doctrine. Relevant to this discussion is the idea that Satan was our brother in the pre-mortal life (rather than an angel created in the heavens prior to Adam's fall) and that he is ruler in hell over just the Sons of Perdition (rather than everyone who is not saved through Christ's grace). So if God made such a point to bring the Nephites up to speed in the truth of the Christian view, why did he give them a 17th Century system of religious beliefs instead of, say, a 21st Century system?