Satan in the Book of Mormon

[volgadon]

The following are the first two occurrences of the word devil in the Book of Mormon:

And as I'll demonstrate, are rather different concepts and occurences.

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.

Devils here are either shedim or mazikim, demons, whose function is not to tempt men to sin, but to cause them harm, afflict them with illness, and so on. They attack, they hurt, they destroy. Unclean spirits are similar.

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.

And here one has to wonder if what is translated as the devil is a person or an embodied concept, such as Belial. Belial was the embodied concept of wickedness and worthless behaviour such as described here. I could of course be wrong in my identification of belial, but that does not change my point that devil and the devil here are not one and the same.

[David T]

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.

Zerinus, You may find this Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article of interest: Nephi and His Asherah

[J Green]

Cheers, Zerinus.

I don't think we're at the impasse you imagine we are, so you can safely put away the Iocane powder. Forget about trees and rods. I think we have some common ground here:

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.

You make the point that what the guide is explaining to Nephi is what the devil is up to, and I agree. The guide does indeed show Nephi many of the devil's activities and explains their context. Aside from causing others to get lost in the mists of darkness, a short list of these activities could include the following:

[*]through temptation, causing the remnant of Nephi's seed to be overpowered by the seed of his brethren

[*]founding a great and abominable church--a

[J Green]

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.

As usual, you explain it better than I do.

Thanks, David.

[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.

By the way, where did Mortal Man go? He raised the Deutero-Isaiah issue but never responded to my post. I feel like I've been stood up on a blind date.

[Vance]

I am just wondering here, but it seems to me, that Nephi would have recorded his dream/vision after (perhaps some time after) it actually occurred.

Wouldn't his record reflect his understanding at the time he recorded it, after the dream/vision, and not his understanding before or during said dream/vision?

If this is so, how can we infer anything about what Nephi understood before said dream/vision?

Just wondering.

[J Green]

Excellent point, Vance.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Zerinus,

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.

I'm not going to explain all of these Near Eastern symbols. A good place to start to understand the tree/wisdom concept is the link Nackhadlow provided. I'm happy, however, to provide a brief explanation of the rod as I understand it, in support of Joey's perspective.

The Book of Mormon uses the word

[consiglieri]

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.

So how are you with the idea that the tree of life = the heavenly mother goddess?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Wayward Mormon caught in trap")

[zerinus]

And as I'll demonstrate, are rather different concepts and occurences.

Devils here are either shedim or mazikim, demons, whose function is not to tempt men to sin, but to cause them harm, afflict them with illness, and so on. They attack, they hurt, they destroy. Unclean spirits are similar.

Thanks for your comments. I don't know where you get your theology from, but I get it from Mormonism and the standard works of the Church. And I make no pretense to knowing Hebrew or Greek either. In Mormonism, When the devil fell, he took "one third of the hosts of heaven" with him. These became his "angels," his "minions," to do his bidding. They help the devil to "make war with the saints," and fight against God. That warfare can be fought on a number of plains, including "tempting" mankind, as well as "taking possession" of their bodies. The same spirits that can take possession of our bodies can also tempt us. That is what Mormonism teaches. Now if you have some other source of information that Mormonism knows nothing about, I can't comment. I am a Mormon, and I believe what Mormonism teaches. I can't acknowledge what comes from another source as sound doctrine if it does not agree with what Mormonism teaches.

And here one has to wonder if what is translated as the devil is a person or an embodied concept, such as Belial. Belial was the embodied concept of wickedness and worthless behaviour such as described here. I could of course be wrong in my identification of belial, but that does not change my point that devil and the devil here are not one and the same.

In Mormonism they mean the same thing. Obviously when it talks about "devils" or "unclean spirits" is it is not talking about the head devil, but his minions. The word devil can be used loosely for both. But in Mormonism they essentially mean the same thing.

[volgadon]

Thanks for your comments. I don't know where you get your theology from, but I get it from Mormonism and the standard works of the Church.

You can drop your holier-than-thou attitude and spare me the lectures. I'm an RM, I've served as a counsellor in the branch presidency and would still be serving had I not moved. I currently teach gospel doctrine, so my orthodoxy is not an issue.

I'm not talking theology here. Theology draws from the scriptures, but it is not identical to them. Theology is perfectly free to reinterpret scripture, or introduce new ideas. Like Gibbons's 'Decline and Fall' theology often reveals more about the theologists than about the original intent of the texts.

I'm not saying that theology is false, but different generations have different insights.

And I make no pretense to knowing Hebrew or Greek either.

And might I add, make no effort to do so.

In Mormonism, When the devil fell, he took "one third of the hosts of heaven" with him. These became his "angels," his "minions," to do his bidding. They help the devil to "make war with the saints," and fight against God. That warfare can be fought on a number of plains, including "tempting" mankind, as well as "taking possession" of their bodies. The same spirits that can take possession of our bodies can also tempt us. That is what Mormonism teaches. Now if you have some other source of information that Mormonism knows nothing about, I can't comment.

But not what the text is teaching.

I am a Mormon, and I believe what Mormonism teaches. I can't acknowledge what comes from another source as sound doctrine if it does not agree with what Mormonism teaches.

I am LDS and do not necessarily believe what Mormonism teaches. I believe the doctrines of the church as contained in the standard works, I believe the Gospel, I put my faith in the Lord and follow his living prophet.

In Mormonism they mean the same thing. Obviously when it talks about "devils" or "unclean spirits" is it is not talking about the head devil, but his minions. The word devil can be used loosely for both. But in Mormonism they essentially mean the same thing.

Perhaps in Mormonism they do, but certainly not to the ANE even at the time of Christ. You look at the gospel accounts of what Nephi is describing and you will see no mention of tempting to sin.

[David Bokovoy]

Thanks for your comments. I don't know where you get your theology from, but I get it from Mormonism

Your views on these topics are not the view of Mormonism. They are the views you derive based upon your interpretation of Mormonism, which as I have illustrated in this thread features a strong Evangelical/Protestant slant. No offense, but as an active believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I personally much prefer Volgadon's Jewish slant to Mormonism than the Evangelical/Protestant perspective you embrace. But that's just me. Whether you recognize it or not, there really is a huge difference between Mormonism itself verses your personal approach to our religion.

[zerinus]

Deleted. No temple content.

Skylla

[Vance]

In Mormonism, When the devil fell, he took "one third of the hosts of heaven" with him.

Zerinus,

If I may be nit picky for a moment.

Technically speaking the phrase "one third" is NO WHERE found in LDS scripture. However the phrase "the third part" is used rather often.

And technically speaking "the third part" doesn't necessarily mean "one third".

[zerinus]

Zerinus, You may find this Journal of Book of Mormon Studies article of interest: Nephi and His Asherah

Thank you, that was an interesting article. Before I respond to that article, I would like to know whether you admire it because it was written by Daniel C. Peterson, or whether you are impressed by it because you genuinely believe it contains good scholarship. If the first, then I have nothing further to say. If the second, then I regret to inform you that it is not good scholarship. Writing a long article and giving lots of quotes and references to research papers and academic articles to arbitrarily link words and concepts together does not make good scholarship.

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

If I may be nit picky for a moment.

Technically speaking the phrase "one third" is NO WHERE found in LDS scripture. However the phrase "the third part" is used rather often.

And technically speaking "the third part" doesn't necessarily mean "one third".

Well, I think they mean the same thing; and neither of them is used in an exact sense. I don't think that precisely a "third part" of the hosts of heaven followed Satan.

[volgadon]

Good. The same devil that tempted them to partake of the forbidden fruit, now threatens to take possession of their bodies. Therefore that your argument that two are not the same is contrived and bogus.

I don't know how followers of Mormonism feel about it, but as a faithful LDS, I try not to discuss temple content outside of the temple, even if it is not specific oaths and signs.

Let me repeat this, the concept of devils was that they possesed bodies, brought about illness and derangement and did as much physical harm as they could.

They did not try and TEMPT people. They took control by force, or assaulted people.

If we look beyond the word, into the context we can see that the two concepts are not one and the same. Joseph smith the translator used the word loosely. As a translator, he used his own worldview, which is fine, the Lord needed it read by people with a similar worldview as Joseph's.

In Russian, for instance, the translation reads with an Orthodox slant. I'm sure that we as an urban society view the scriptures differently than those of Joseph's day, who were mostly agrarian. Had the BoM been translated by a modern scholar of the ANE there would be different layers of meaning than there are now.

1 Corinthians 9:19-22.

Actually that is not true. Many years ago I made a brief study of Hebrew Grammar, but not with the intention of becoming an expert in it. After I had got what I wanted to get out of it, I saw no need to continue. That was many years ago, so now I have pretty much forgotten what I had studied. You do not need to know Greek and Hebrew in order to become a good Mormon theologian or gospel scholar. That is why "translations" are made.

As my post was in the present tense, it still stands.

Knowing Greek and Hebrew is not essential to living the gospel, but certainly helps in understand it better. Translations are crutches, frankly.

[zerinus]

Hello Zerinus,

I'm not going to explain all of these Near Eastern symbols. A good place to start to understand the tree/wisdom concept is the link Nackhadlow provided. I'm happy, however, to provide a brief explanation of the rod as I understand it, in support of Joey's perspective.

The Book of Mormon uses the word

[volgadon]

We understand the meaning of words by their contexts. The "rod of iron" that Nephi was talking about was not like a "walking stick" which you appear to have in mind. It was a very long rod. It was something that "extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree" by which Lehi stood (1 Nephi 8:19). It was more like a railing than a rod, of the kind you are describing. So there is no way the two could have anything in common

[zerinus]

Knowing Greek and Hebrew is not essential to living the gospel, but certainly helps in understand it better. Translations are crutches, frankly.

Then I am very grateful for the "crutch" of the Book of Mormon; and since the Lord has not allowed us to have the original manuscript, you and I are in the same boat!

[J Green]

We understand the meaning of words by their contexts. The "rod of iron" that Nephi was talking about was not like a "walking stick" which you appear to have in mind. It was a very long rod. It was something that "extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree" by which Lehi stood (1 Nephi 8:19). It was more like a railing than a rod, of the kind you are describing. So there is no way the two could have anything in common

[volgadon]

Then I am very grateful for the "crutch" of the Book of Mormon; and since the Lord has not allowed us to have the original manuscript, you and I are in the same boat!

At least I have brought an oar.

[zerinus]

And the ladder which Jacob saw was a very long ladder. So?

You tell me! A ladder can be long or short, and still be called a ladder. There are long ladders and short ladders. But there is nothing in common between a walking stick and a mile long railing.

[volgadon]

You tell me! A ladder can be long or short, and still be called a ladder. There are long ladders and short ladders. But there is nothing in common between a walking stick and a mile long railing.

But a mile long walking stick would still be a walking stick, just monstrously disproportionate. A cotainer 20 cubits long and 10 cubits wide is still a container.

[zerinus]

Hi, Zerinus.

I know we typically assume that the rod runs like a railing, but in fact we are not told how it extends, how long it extends (the entire length of river bank?), or how it leads. In the Old Testament we see many instances of Moses' or Aaron's rod or hand being extended (Heb natah) in conjunction with the miraculous and a ruling/guiding function. In the BoM, the imagery of the Savior's arm being extended out to us to lead us to him is pervasive. In the Tree of Life vision, I view the rod of iron being extended exactly in this sense, and not in the more modern sense of a railing that "runs" the length of a river bank necessarily. I've been wrong before, and I could certainly be wrong here, but that is how I see it. Nephi looks and sees a rod extending along the bank. Extending from where? Presumably the tree. How long? Not told. It leads people to the tree. These are all functions of the divine shepherd staff extended by him whose arm is extended "all the day long" if we but accept it.

Regards

An "extended arm" is a raised arm. It does not become longer! It is not the same as the rod "extending along the bank of the river". How much the rod extended along the bank I do not know, but clearly it was not a walking stick.