Lehi vs. Isaiah

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Warship,

==I always thought that Isaiah was speaking prophetically as Jehova.

Isaiah 6 presents Isaiah

[Brant Gardner]

Enemy Ace:

But I am trying to say there is an element among religion that is beyond all normal definition in their perception of the paranormal or mystical.

Of course. Because the ecstatic elements are similar they may be compared. My issue is only that there is a division in concepts that suggests that the prophetic visions are a different experiential division from the shamanic experiences. While the similarities are instructive, they are nevertheless different in some major fundamentals.

One of the differences I think I see (and I haven't had it confirmed) is that the eastern shamanic religions (and those built upon the basic wellspring of shamanic religions) see the world and a binary opposition - which is indelibly united. It is the source of the yin/yang, if you will. Good and bad are two sides of the same coin. Good differs from bad, but is not separate from it.

On the other hand, western religions separate good and bad (evil) so far that there is place for a "middle" - which is the Levi-Straussian mediator.

That is a fundamental religious difference. No matter what similarity they began with, that is an early dividing line that precedes other developments - sort of an early emergence of a proto-language from which there are many daughter languages.

[Ron Beron]

Of course.  Because the ecstatic elements are similar they may be compared. My issue is only that there is a division in concepts that suggests that the prophetic visions are a different experiential division from the shamanic experiences. While the similarities are instructive, they are nevertheless different in some major fundamentals.

I can agree to a certain point with this. Certainly, the result of each would be different. The more primitive divination would have less to do with God's will on some abstract subject and more to do with securing a hunt.

One of the differences I think I see (and I haven't had it confirmed) is that the eastern shamanic religions (and those built upon the basic wellspring of shamanic religions) see the world and a binary opposition - which is indelibly united. It is the source of the yin/yang, if you will. Good and bad are two sides of the same coin. Good differs from bad, but is not separate from it.

On the other hand, western religions separate good and bad (evil) so far that there is place for a "middle" - which is the Levi-Straussian mediator.

In some ways this is correct. The yin/yan principle doesn't necessarily see the world in two camps, one good and the other evil. Instead, it sees the world within this sphere of harmony with the polarities of both balancing everything out. So, in this , the two-side coin analogy would be apt. This would be true of many Asian cultures, including those who accept Confucianism and Taoism. The Japanese accept this to a degree as do the Korean and some Chinese. For the vast number of Asians that practiced shamanism, though, they were primarily animistic and not religious, per se.

This would also not include the South Asian religions which did consider the Levi-Strauss mediation, especially Hinduism. I would have some difficulty with the Levi-Strauss paradigm because he primarily addresses myth, but not folklore or religion, which I believe shamanism essentially is, whether east or west. And certainly this would not be considered with Tungusic shamanism which does see the world with gradients of morality. It might be suggested, although I am not prepared to defend it, that the shamanistic/visionary activities of the Mesopotamian and Hebrew ecstatic is derivative of the Tungus traditon of the Mongolian.

Brant, thanks for your comments. I have been trying to work out some theories and your input was helpful.

[Warship]

Brant,

eastern shamanic religions (and those built upon the basic wellspring of shamanic religions) see the world and a binary opposition - which is indelibly united. It is the source of the yin/yang, if you will. Good and bad are two sides of the same coin. Good differs from bad, but is not separate from it.

On the other hand, western religions separate good and bad (evil) so far that there is place for a "middle" - which is the Levi-Straussian mediator.

That is a fundamental religious difference. No matter what similarity they began with, that is an early dividing line that precedes other developments - sort of an early emergence of a proto-language from which there are many daughter

How do you account for this in the BOM?

2Nephi2

[11] For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility

[Brant Gardner]

Warship:

How do you account for this in the BOM? (Lehi's opposition in all things)

I'm afraid I am not sure what you are questioning. Both the eastern and western branches of the division deal with opposition - it is a question of the nature of the separation/separability. As for Lehi, he was clearly a child of the western side of the division that led to the religions dominant in the western world (probably because of the influence of Judeo-Christian thought).

Lehi's law of opposition is in the Book of Mormon because Lehi recognized it as a fundamental principle.

Is there something else I am missing?

[Warship]

Brant,

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before.

I thought that 2Nephi 2:11 was demonstrative of a unified good and evil...therefore does not adhere to the Levi-Straussian mediator found in Western religions.

It seems more like yin/yang than

separate good and bad (evil) so far that there is place for a "middle"

Thanks

[Brant Gardner]

Warship:

That is an interesting reading of Lehi's oppositions. Maybe it is my western mind, but I don't see Lehi presenting good and evil as connected at all. He presents them as two opposite poles. Certainly his understanding of the atonement has Christ mediating the justice/mercy opposition.

[Warship]

Brant,

It seems to me he is saying that it is the thing that has the opposition.

2Nephi2

[11] For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility

Lehi expresses the dichotomy is within the thing itself (compound in one ...certainly connected)...this is the very idea of yin and yang.

Yin and Yang literally basically means the

[Brant Gardner]

Warship:

Interesting way to see it. With that definition, man is neither good nor evil, being able to choose either (and usually some of each).

However, the ultimate fate of those choices leads to a separation from the ambiguity. I don't see Lehi preaching that evil has its seed in good. I think he sees them as much more separate than that. We get repetition of the doctrine of two ways in the Book of Mormon, and that dichotomous approach doesn't follow the yin/yang idea.

I don't think that the "compound in one" is the "thing" in the middle - but rather the absence of the ends. Without good and evil, all choices are equal. Nothing is better or worse and therefore even though we can choose, the choice is meaningless. For example, if I have to choose between two identical brand new books, I can make the choice, but it doesn't mean anything.

[Warship]

Brant,

The text argues against your interpretation...

I don't see Lehi presenting good and evil as connected at all. He presents them as two opposite poles. I don't see Lehi preaching that evil has its seed in good. I think he sees them as much more separate than that.

Lehi refutes this saying they are connected and that a thing of "one body" is useless. That if good is just good, or bad is just bad, then it is useless.

11. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility

[Brant Gardner]

Warship:

I will grant that the ideas are very similar. However, note your statement:

eventually saying that if all things were not imbued with this dichotomy that that would negate the existence of God himself

I agree with you and Lehi that this dichotomy is part of what God is. Are you suggesting that there is a seed of evil in God, that God is not wholly good? I suppose we might argue whether there is a seed of good in Satan, but I would argue that the Satan of developed Christian literature is depicted as, and intended to be seen as, wholly evil as contrast to the wholly good God.

Lehi is at an earlier stage so I wouldn't expect the wholly evil Satan (though I don't remember any kind words about him in the Book of Mormon). However, I don't see Lehi or any Judeo-Christian religion, suggesting that there is a seed of evil in God. Were that to happen, I suspect that the "God would cease to be God" clause would be invoked.

[Warship]

Brant,

Are you suggesting that there is a seed of evil in God, that God is not wholly good?

1. Lehi articulates very well that this dichotomy is a part of man and that man is in the image of God and became more so like him when man ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is when man ceased being "a body of one" and became a dichotomy of good and evil, at the same time becoming more like God.

2. God being the creator of all things, and all those things having a dichotomy, by default makes him the source of both good and evil(note that just bc he is the source does not necessarily make God good or evil). This was evidenced in my last post where God is recognized as the source of all good, and God himself gives us his rational about reconciling the fact that he is the origin of all sin thru Christ's infinite atonement.

Lehi seems to offer an interesting solution to your dilemma about Satan, God, and evil while also illustrating 1. and 2. above.

2Nephi2

[15] And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, 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.

[16] 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.

[17] 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.

[18] And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

This tetifies that even Satan was once an angel. To be an angel he must have been good at one point. Then he chose evil. Satan did not suddenly become wholly evil and cannot be, he chooses to be evil as his dichotomy (and ours) allows.

Lehi makes it subtlely clear that God needed satan to fulfill his eternal purposes for man and thus sent him down to earth where Satan "fools" Eve into committing the original sin. With this explanation Lehi offers God somewhat of a reprieve, though casting satan to earth and thus being the cause of all sin...it is still Satan(thru his own free will) who is seen as beguiling Eve and being the cause of evil falling upon mankind.

Of course God is man enough to own up to this without excuse while rectifying the problem (in Mos 26:23).

God is the creator of all things. Personally, I think if evil created itself outside of God's authority and actively effects God's domain against his wishes, then "God would cease to be God".

[Warship]

going twice