Satan in the Book of Mormon

[volgadon]

LOL! Your example doesn't exactly enthuse me.

Yeah, that would require a little more effort than just scripture interpreting scripture. You would have to be exposed to outside sources and things like historical and anthropological layers.

[Mortal Man]

I think we see the same thing at work with Jacob, who quotes from Isaiah 51 (2 Ne 8 ) concerning Rahab, the waters of chaos, and the oppressor.

When do you suppose Isaiah 51 was written?

[David T]

I don

[J Green]

When do you suppose Isaiah 51 was written?

Hi, Mortal Man.

Are you merely asking why I believe exilic and post-exilic writings might be contained in a set of plates that ostensibly left Jerusalem circa 600 bce? Or are you actually engaging the OP and wondering about the dating of later deutero-Isaiah texts in comparison to earlier pericopes vis-a-vis a developing ha-satan theology?

Inquiring minds and all . . .

[Cold Steel]

Biblical scholar Michael Hesier goes so far as to suggest that the reading can be entirely correlated with the Baal-Athtar myth from Ugarit. See Michael S. Heiser,

[Mortal Man]

Hi, Mortal Man.

Are you merely asking why I believe exilic and post-exilic writings might be contained in a set of plates that ostensibly left Jerusalem circa 600 bce? Or are you actually engaging the OP and wondering about the dating of later deutero-Isaiah texts in comparison to earlier pericopes vis-a-vis a developing ha-satan theology?

Inquiring minds and all . . .

There's no hidden motive in my question. A range of dates would suffice for an answer. Since you tied 2 Nephi 8 to the OP, I don't think my question constitutes a threadjack. Of course, now that you've raised additional questions, I think inquiring minds would like those answered as well.

[Rob Bowman]

David,

You wrote:

One of the criticisms raised by critics of the Book of Mormon against its authenticity includes the detailed view of Satan witnessed throughout the work. I believe, however, a careful analysis of the use of Satan in the account actually provides evidence for the book's authenticity. I maintain that we can trace historically how the Book of Mormon authors came to understand the Satan concept. The view derives from Lehi's careful analysis of the book of Isaiah. This analysis set the foundation for the way subsequent Book of Mormon authors understood the doctrine of the Lord's Adversary.

A worthy topic. Before examining your argument, allow me to quote the verses in some context:

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.

Now, you quoted verse 17 and then commented:

This use of

[J Green]

There's no hidden motive in my question. A range of dates would suffice for an answer. Since you tied 2 Nephi 8 to the OP, I don't think my question constitutes a threadjack. Of course, now that you've raised additional questions, I think inquiring minds would like those answered as well.

Re the first part, I'm not prepared to suggest a range. As you know, current scholarship dates Deutero-Isaiah to late in the captivity and Trito-Isaiah to shortly after the return. There are good reasons for this, and I wouldn't discard them lightly. As you are also aware, there are a wide range of LDS scholarly perspectives on this issue, including Sperry, Gileadi, Ludlow, etc. I've read most of these approaches and these scholars all make good arguments. But I haven't made up my mind concerning the current evidence and the various LDS scholarly engagements of that evidence. I simply accept that it is there in the text. I'm interested in theories, but I don't have my own solution yet. Do you have a range of dates you'd like to suggest?

Re the second, I recommend Margaret Barker's commentary on Isaiah found in Eerdman's commentary on the bible. According to her analysis, most of Isaiah (including the later texts) seems to be referencing some form of application/commentary on the fallen angels pericope from Gen 6. That an entire later Enoch corpus and much of Isaiah can grow out of essentially one story of fallen rebellious angels seems relevant to a family of priestly scribes (I believe) who are parsing Isiah to develop an understanding of a fallen angelic adversary.

Your turn. How do you apply the dating of Deutero-Isiaiah texts to the op thesis?

[J Green]

Rob,

One observation about your conclusion on early BOM demonology:

Your argument that Lehi is offering his own cautious inference from what is only implicit in the Hebrew Bible (or that portion to which he would have had access) also ignores the context of this statement in the Book of Mormon. Prior to 2 Nephi 2, the Book of Mormon text has already referred frequently and confidently to

[zerinus]

Its use in the Book of Mormon quotation of Isaiah 14 demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the dependence of 2 Nephi on the King James Version.

I don't agree. The Book of Mormon is a translation. It is revelation, it is inspiration, it is scripture, but it is also a translation. And when a translator (any translator, inspired or uninspired) is faced with a choice of vocabulary for a particular word, he chooses a word that for any number of factors (including historical linguistic development and association, resulting from earlier translations perhaps) he considers to be the most appropriate for the occasion. In this particular occasion, it happens that Joseph Smith, or rather the Holy Spirit that was acting through him, out of all the alternative choices that was available to him, concluded that Lucifer was the best choice of vocabulary (given all the historical and linguistic development and association in the English language) to use on this occasion. Does that mean that the KJV has had that much influence in development of English language? Of course it does! Everybody knows that, not just the Holy Ghost.

Now, in the light of all this information, the source of Lehi

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Zerinus,

This is how I view scripture. This does not mean that scripture makes no references to pagan practices at all. It does, and usually only to condemn it. But to suggest that its theology is somehow formed of or influenced by such teachings or practices is something that I cannot accept; and that is what you are implying.

There's a reason why you frequently find yourself in greater harmony with Rob than with the LDS posters using this forum. Your approach to scripture is more Evangelical than it is LDS. By rejecting the fact that Old Testament texts have been influenced by Near Eastern sources, you maintain the exact same philosophical approach to scripture that Rob's IRR organization puts forth in their criticism of the Book of Abraham. Note how their approach to scripture precisely parallels the ideology you embrace:

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Cold Steel,

The thing about biblical scholars is that many of them don't know any better. That's not meant to be a derisive stab at them, but anytime someone living in the far distant future tries to ascertain what people knew or thought in a time so far removed from themselves, their guesses are limited to what we now know.

It's true that Lehi surmised what he gathered about Satan, though he never referred to him as "Lucifer." Lehi also had scriptures and personal revelations and visions that Heiser does not have access to. It's clear that Nephi knew who Satan was and that the Nephite people knew about him. Lehi also knew about the influence of Satan over his two wayward sons. To think that a prophet would not be given information pertaining to Satan is pretty much unthinkable. If Lehi only began receiving visions and revelations shortly before his ministry to the people of Jerusalem, he may not have fully known about Satan's background. But I don't think it would have taken long for that knowledge to be forthcoming.

No doubt if we had access to the Book of Lehi, our understanding of what the Prophet did or did not know theologically through his dreams and visions would be greatly enhanced. As it stands, however, all we can go by in our analysis is what appears in the current Book of Mormon text. Lehi does not attribute his knowledge of Satan to a sacred dream, vision, or encounter. Lehi specifically states that he learned of Satan from the material he had "read":

"And I Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose..." (2 Nephi 2:17)

[USU78]

That is clever! You are laying a subtle trap to catch those wayward Mormons who have abandoned the plain meaning of the word of God, and become intoxicated with their own "learning" and what they think is sophisticated of "scholarship;" and I dare say you might succeed.

* * *

It looks like the Lord wants to catch these folks in their "learning," and has sent you to trap them! I am also reminded of this verse:

* * *

If you succeed, good luck! I guess they deserve it!

How terribly uncharitably of you, z.

I'm ashamed of your post ^ here. No Saint should say such things of other Saints.

You think Rob is your friend or that he is or could be persuaded that the BoM or the BoA are of G-d? Not in a million years. His disdain for the likes of thee and me as nothing but "some Mormon" is absolute. He sneers at the notion that anyone could believe in the message of the Plowboy Prophet, and the idea that G-d might visit a XIXth Century American of whatever age is, to him, hilarious.

Don't be taken in by the alleged friendliness. The smile is false; the handshake conceals the knife.

DB and the rest do not deserve your ill-wishes. You do very poorly.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Rob,

Thanks for a well-thought out, thoughtful critique. I

[David Bokovoy]

That does sound fun. I think it is directly relevant here. After all, the Hebrew Bible seems (and I do emphasise seems, as appearances can be decieving) to have very little direct mention of beings such as devils and demons, yet we know from outside sources and archaeological evidence that the belief in such was widespread, and the way the BoM uses the term the devil, it would have had to carry some meaning to the listeners and authors.

I grew up in a town where most of the population was from North Africa, but also from Yemen, Kurdistan and Iran. Especially for the older generation, demons were very real indeed. Garlic hanging up to dry was not merely in the interests of food preservation!

Why I bring this up is because, although the specifics details may have changed, I'm not sure the outlook of a mid-20th century Berber peasent from a remote village in the Atlas mtns is really that dramatically different from that of his ancient Israelite counterparts in the Kingdom of Judah, when it came to the presence and effect of evil forces. Wives could miscarry, crops could fail and disease could strike, to name but a few problems. The same spirit that drives science is probably behind the belief in demons, that is, cause and effect. If one identifies the cause, then one can work towards eliminating or at least minimilising the effect.

Lehi would have spoken in terms that his family could relate to. Before Zerinus starts accusing me of claiming that they believed in demons, Im not saying that they necessarily did, but that the terms he used would have resonated with them, having come from such an environment and background.

I think demonology of the ANE could shed light on certain passages and constructs in the BoM.

BTW, I remeber that as a kid i had read something about a calendar or almanach of sorts for Akkadian demons, which ones were about at what hours. Fascinating stuff.

Excellent observations!

" O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit" (2 Nephi 9:10).

[volgadon]

Excellent observations!

" O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit" (2 Nephi 9:10).

And that of course is a fascinating verse. Reflects the traditional pairing of Death and the Sea, but I find it interesting that they have been rolled up into a single entity.

[Rob Bowman]

J. Green,

You wrote:

Except that almost all of these "frequent" and "confident" references are from Nephi's extended tree of life vision. And this is where the concept is introduced in the BOM--not by Nephi but by his spiritual guide telling him about "temptations of the devil," etc.

Actually, the devil is first mentioned in that vision in a way that presupposes that Nephi already knew who the devil was:

"17 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.... 19 And while the angel spake these words, I beheld and saw that the seed of my brethren did contend against my seed, according to the word of the angel; and because of the pride of my seed, and the temptations of the devil, I beheld that the seed of my brethren did overpower the people of my seed" (1 Ne. 12:17, 19).

The angel that speaks to Nephi to interpret the vision explains the mists of darkness (what Nephi needs interpreted) as symbolic of "the temptations of the devil" (what Nephi already knew about), with no explanation whatsoever as to who "the devil" is. Thus, the book of 1 Nephi assumes that Nephi and his family already knew about the devil.

[J Green]

Actually, the devil is first mentioned in that vision in a way that presupposes that Nephi already knew who the devil was:

"17 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.... 19 And while the angel spake these words, I beheld and saw that the seed of my brethren did contend against my seed, according to the word of the angel; and because of the pride of my seed, and the temptations of the devil, I beheld that the seed of my brethren did overpower the people of my seed" (1 Ne. 12:17, 19).

The angel that speaks to Nephi to interpret the vision explains the mists of darkness (what Nephi needs interpreted) as symbolic of "the temptations of the devil" (what Nephi already knew about), with no explanation whatsoever as to who "the devil" is. Thus, the book of 1 Nephi assumes that Nephi and his family already knew about the devil.

Cheers, Rob, and thanks for the reply.

I'm arguing for a more nuanced position than this. I think many of the ideas and images in Nephi's extended vision were common ANE themes that would have been familiar to him in some sense before the dream. Tree as wisdom (and it's connection to Asherah), torah as a path, iron rod as a symbol of king's authority to rule over, shepherd and guide his subjects, etc. But the angel places many of these in a context that gives Nephi a greater understanding and seems to spur him to dig into Isaiah to understand these concepts more or to use the dream terminology to create his own pesherim/commentaries on extended passages of Isaiah. I provided a few examples of this.

It is this type of activity that I see as a possibility with demonology in the BoM. I don't claim that Nephi knew nothing about a devil before the dream. But much like the tree, rod, or other images that were probably also familiar symbols or concepts before the vision, I believe that the dream introduces some context to the devil as an adversary to God that leads Nephi and his family to dig through the texts they have to understand this concept more fully. As I noted earlier in this thread, I believe that Jacob's belief in a monster ties to Isaiah's reference to Rahab in the previous chapter (2 Ne 8/Isa 51), and David makes a good case for Lehi using Isaiah to draw conclusions about an adversary to God.

Regards

[Rob Bowman]

J. Green,

That's a very sophisticated as well as very "nuanced" view.

I would suggest (in the spirit of nuance) that we need to distinguish between the claim that specific internal elements in the Book of Mormon are evidence of its authenticity (or lack thereof) and more modest claims that such elements are consistent with its authenticity (or lack thereof). The latter type of claim proceeds with the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a given, for those who are LDS, and from there proposes various connections with ANE themes or the like. In response, as you surely can guess, those who are not LDS will point to other sources accessible to Joseph Smith and his contemporaries for these same elements. What both sides must do to show that their approach is superior to the other is to argue that specific elements are best explained on their approach.

Cheers, Rob, and thanks for the reply.

I'm arguing for a more nuanced position than this. I think many of the ideas and images in Nephi's extended vision were common ANE themes that would have been familiar to him in some sense before the dream. Tree as wisdom (and it's connection to Asherah), torah as a path, iron rod as a symbol of king's authority to rule over, shepherd and guide his subjects, etc. But the angel places many of these in a context that gives Nephi a greater understanding and seems to spur him to dig into Isaiah to understand these concepts more or to use the dream terminology to create his own pesherim/commentaries on extended passages of Isaiah. I provided a few examples of this.

It is this type of activity that I see as a possibility with demonology in the BoM. I don't claim that Nephi knew nothing about a devil before the dream. But much like the tree, rod, or other images that were probably also familiar symbols or concepts before the vision, I believe that the dream introduces some context to the devil as an adversary to God that leads Nephi and his family to dig through the texts they have to understand this concept more fully. As I noted earlier in this thread, I believe that Jacob's belief in a monster ties to Isaiah's reference to Rahab in the previous chapter (2 Ne 8/Isa 51), and David makes a good case for Lehi using Isaiah to draw conclusions about an adversary to God.

Regards

[USU78]

I would suggest (in the spirit of nuance) that we need to distinguish between the claim that specific internal elements in the Book of Mormon are evidence of its authenticity (or lack thereof) and more modest claims that such elements are consistent with its authenticity (or lack thereof).

I actually agree with RB here.

[J Green]

Ditto.

[David Bokovoy]

I would suggest (in the spirit of nuance) that we need to distinguish between the claim that specific internal elements in the Book of Mormon are evidence of its authenticity (or lack thereof) and more modest claims that such elements are consistent with its authenticity (or lack thereof)

I think that's a very reasonable perspective, Rob. I'm very pleased that you've posted in this forum. Despite our disagreements, I've been sincerely impressed with both your civility and knowledge. In all honesty, prior to reading your posts, I had absolutely no respect whatsoever for IRR. I hope you'll take this in the way it's intended, i.e., as a compliment, but I'm actually incredibly surprised that someone this intelligent and well-versed in biblical studies is directly affiliated with the institute. If nothing else, you've caused me to reassess my opinion of IRR.

Best,

--DB

[zerinus]

And there are others. However, these two examples illustrate the point that David is exploring. We "must needs suppose" that Nephi (and probably Lehi) is introduced to a concept during his vision, and that his family later searches through the biblical records to find an explanation for what he is told in his vision about an adversary. That he applies some of his post-vision commentary to passages from Isaiah shows that he finds much of his vision material in Isaianic texts and seems to go to them for further information on the concepts introduced during that seminal event.

The Book of Mormon vision account does not bear that out. It is true that the devil is first mentioned in the vision by the angel in the Book of Mormon; but the angel uses the word as a "given" in the pre-acquired stock of Nephi's knowledge. The angel does not "explain" to Nephi who or what the "devil" is, but uses the word as part of the vocabulary that Nephi is already familiar with. The following are the first two occurrences of the word devil in the Book of Mormon:

Nephi 11

:

31 And he spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men. 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.

1 Nephi 12

:

16 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the fountain of filthy water which thy father saw; yea, even the river of which he spake; and the depths thereof are the depths of hell.

17 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.

This doesn't suggest that Nephi didn't know who the devil is. The angel is assuming that he already knows who the devil is, and is telling him what the devil is up to. Bear in mind that we are still dealing in the very early chapters in the Book of Mormon. The history hasn't developed for us to assert conclusively what Nephi knows about the devil and what he doesn't.

I'm arguing for a more nuanced position than this. I think many of the ideas and images in Nephi's extended vision were common ANE themes that would have been familiar to him in some sense before the dream. Tree as wisdom (and it's connection to Asherah), torah as a path, iron rod as a symbol of king's authority to rule over, shepherd and guide his subjects, etc. But the angel places many of these in a context that gives Nephi a greater understanding and seems to spur him to dig into Isaiah to understand these concepts more or to use the dream terminology to create his own pesherim commentaries on extended passages of Isaiah. I provided a few examples of this.

You are making things up or imagining things! The vision story tells us that Nephi doesn't know the meaning of those symbolic images, and asks the angel to tell him. And the meanings of the symbols are not anything near what you are talking about. The "tree" is not "wisdom," but a "representation of the love of God". The "rod" is not "a symbol of king's authority to rule over," but the "word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life". And it doesn't tell you what the "path" is!

It is this type of activity that I see as a possibility with demonology in the BoM. I don't claim that Nephi knew nothing about a devil before the dream. But much like the tree, rod, or other images that were probably also familiar symbols or concepts before the vision, I believe that the dream introduces some context to the devil as an adversary to God that leads Nephi and his family to dig through the texts they have to understand this concept more fully.

These are bogus inferences. Everything in the vision story suggest that Nephi emerged from the vision with his knowledge greatly enhanced about the symbolic images of the tree and the iron rod, and a lot of other things besides; and there is nothing in there to suggest that he emerged with his knowledge significantly increased about who the devil was.

As I noted earlier in this thread, I believe that Jacob's belief in a monster ties to Isaiah's reference to Rahab in the previous chapter (2 Ne 8/Isa 51), and David makes a good case for Lehi using Isaiah to draw conclusions about an adversary to God.

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon account that makes that inference a plausible one.

[David Bokovoy]

Zerinus,

]You are making things up or imagining things! The vision story tells us that Nephi doesn't know the meaning of those symbolic images, and asks the angel to tell him. And the meanings of the symbols are not anything near what you are talking about. The "tree" is not "wisdom," but a "representation of the love of God". The "rod" is not "a symbol of king's authority to rule over," but the "word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life". And it doesn't tell you what the "path" is!

As a general rule, it's probably a good idea for one to understand an argument before one attempts to critique an argument. Joey is not stating that in Nephi's vision the tree represents wisdom, the rod denotes the king's authority to rue, etc. Joey is arguing that these were common Near Eastern symbols that Nephi would have had some familiarity with prior to the vision and that the vision took these common symbols and gave them an enhanced meaning unique to Nephi's vision.

He's absolutely correct.

The same of course is true for the concept of "devils/demons" referred to in the text.

[zerinus]

As a general rule, it's probably a good idea for one to understand an argument before one attempts to critique an argument. Joey is not stating that in Nephi's vision the tree represents wisdom, the rod denotes the king's authority to rue, etc. Joey is arguing that these were common Near Eastern symbols that Nephi would have had some familiarity with prior to the vision and that the vision took these common symbols and gave them an enhanced meaning unique to Nephi's vision.

Then what he says don't make sense. I cannot for the life of me see what relevance "Tree"="wisdom" and "tree"="love of God," or "rod"="king's scepter" and "rod"="word of God," have to each other. In what possible way did the angel take one symbol with one meaning and "enhanced" it by giving it another? The symbols in each case mean entirely different things.