Satan in the Book of Mormon

[volgadon]

And it could very well be that they are holding on to it like a railing, but it is still a staff, not a walking stick. The primary function of a staff was not walking, it was defence and discipline.

[J Green]

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.

Hi, Zerinus.

So in this verse . . .

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I beseech of you in words of soberness that ye would repent, and come with full purpose of heart, and cleave unto God as he cleaveth unto you. And while his arm of mercy is extended towards you in the light of the day, harden not your hearts. (Jacob 6:5)

. . . are the Savior's arms raised above him or stretched out to the person he's inviting to join him?

Regards

[J Green]

And it could very well be that they are holding on to it like a railing, but it is still a staff, not a walking stick. The primary function of a staff was not walking, it was defence and discipline.

And to extend out to the wayward sheep (lost in the mists of darkeness) to pull them back to the fold.

[zerinus]

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

Altogether against the idea!

[zerinus]

Hi, Zerinus.

So in this verse . . .

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I beseech of you in words of soberness that ye would repent, and come with full purpose of heart, and cleave unto God as he cleaveth unto you. And while his arm of mercy is extended towards you in the light of the day, harden not your hearts. (Jacob 6:5)

. . . are the Savior's arms raised above him or stretched out to the person he's inviting to join him?

Regards

Whether it is raised above Him or stretched out in front of Him, it don't get longer.

[David Bokovoy]

Hi, Zerinus.

So in this verse . . .

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I beseech of you in words of soberness that ye would repent, and come with full purpose of heart, and cleave unto God as he cleaveth unto you. And while his arm of mercy is extended towards you in the light of the day, harden not your hearts. (Jacob 6:5)

. . . are the Savior's arms raised above him or stretched out to the person he's inviting to join him?

Regards

I really love this imagery. The other powerful concept we glean from a proper understanding of the biblical/Book of Mormon rod is that unlike a railing, a rod would need a shepherd holding onto one end, drawing those unto him who grasp hold of his word.

[volgadon]

That depends on how long it is to begin with........ =)

[David Bokovoy]

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]

Number 1, we don't know how long the river and/or the rod was.

Number 2, items that belong/pertain to God in the Bible are often depicted as enormously large, like a train which fills the temple (see Isaiah 6:1).

This debate is getting crazier and crazier by the minute!

[volgadon]

I really love this imagery. The other powerful concept we glean from a proper understanding of the biblical/Book of Mormon rod is that unlike a railing, a rod would need a shepherd holding onto one end, drawing those unto him who grasp hold of his word.

Precisely. That also ties into the the message of Christ, doesn't it?

Oh, how much richer the BoM is when we try and see what Lehi and co. saw!

[volgadon]

BTW I thought I'd link to an essay by a family friend of ours. He was my dad's counsellor in the branch presidency when I was a little kid, and I spent many hours in his father's house in Nazareth.

Just goes to show that Zerinus's concept of Mormonism is more of a socio-cultural thing than the actual gospel.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=11&num=1&id=280

[David Bokovoy]

This debate is getting crazier and crazier by the minute!

Why, you don't believe that God wore a robe that was so excessively long it filled the temple?

[volgadon]

Why, you don't believe that God wore a robe that was so excessively long it filled the temple?

Since it was that long it couldn't have been a robe, must have been a steam-engine.

[David T]

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.

I'd love to know your standard of 'Good Scholarship'.

[Bic Pentameter]

Zerinus,

Though I believe that you are probably an intelligent person, there is an air of condescension in your posts that is lacking in those of others in this topic. I hope that conversation can continue with less superciliousness. These are your brothers.

As Hugh Nibley used to say, "The open mind is a searching mind."

- Bic

[mfbukowski]

So for Lehi to take this specific taunt as evidence to "suppose" that a member of the divine council, termed an

[volgadon]

I suspect that the reason it is used for the Saviour is because it sheds its skin. A resurrection of srots, if you will.

[Facsimile 3]

[zerinus]

I'd love to know your standard of 'Good Scholarship'.

It is easier to tell you what is wrong with that article, than to explain what is my standard of "good scholarship". I will quote from the article:

Nephi's vision of the tree of life, among the best-known passages in the Book of Mormon, expands upon the vision received earlier by his father, Lehi.

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all.

And he said unto me: What desirest thou?

And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof. . . . (1 Nephi 11:8

[David Bokovoy]

It is easier to tell you what is wrong with that article, than to explain what is my standard of "good scholarship". I will quote from the article:

So far so good. He has made an important observation. He has correctly noticed that the angel does not answer Nephi's question directly. Instead, he shows him a vision of virgin mother and her child. Then miraculously Nephi realizes the meaning of the tree; and instead of the angel telling Nephi what the tree means, Nephi tells the angel what it means! (That is also true of the meaning of the rod by the way. The angel doesn't directly tell him what the rod means. He gives him a vision of other things, and Nephi's mind lights up, and he realizes what the rod means.) So here is the interesting question: What is there in the vision of the virgin mother and child that causes Nephi to realize the meaning of the tree? That is the question that Daniel Peterson tries to answer:

That is where he starts going wrong. The tree has nothing to do with the Virgin Mary. He comes to a false and arbitrary conclusion that the tree in some sense must represent Mary, and then he puts together an elaborately constructed argument to prove it that is entirely contrived and baseless. You can prove anything by following that kind of methodology. And this "Asherah" thing he has put together is a load of rubbish basically. I can put an argument like that together to prove that there are green men on the moon. He has wrested the scriptures and does not understand them.

The answer to the question he asks is actually a lot simpler than that, and it is to be found in the scriptures. The question is: What was there in the vision of the virgin mother and child (1 Nephi 11:12

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Mfbukowski,

Is there any link here at all to Moses' "fiery serpent" raised on the pole as a symbol for the savior? It has fascinated me that the serpent is used both as a symbol of satan and the savior.

And I know the link between the fiery serpent and the feathered serpent (Quezacotl)has been largely discredited, but these references keep raising the question for me

Great question! I believe that there is absolutely an historical connection between this argument and the association with Christ as serpent via the saraph in Numbers 21. I'm actually currently writing an article that connects the saraph in Numbers 21 with the saraph who heals Isaiah in his prophetic commission. Moreover, I've always enjoyed the connection between resurrection and the shedding of skin pointed out by Volgadon.

Best

[zerinus]

In reality, there are actually two separate examples of God's condescension in Nephi's vision, pointing to two separate deities. However, speaking of condescension in terms of a patronizing attitude or behavior, please take your dismissal of Dr. Peterson's outstanding article as "rubbish," "a load of bull," and an example of poor scholarship to another thread. This one is focused upon the topic of Satan in the Book of Mormon, not on Asherah.

That is the question I was asked to explain. Sorry if you don't like it!

[J Green]

That is the question I was asked to explain.

The problem, Zerinus, is that you don't actually explain it. You said you would show why it is poor scholarship then proceed to call the associations false, arbirtrary, contrived, baseless, etc. But you never actually explain why they are false. You never demonstrate anything, provide any evidence or any real commentary. You simply call the conclusions names. I'm afraid the poor scholarship you have exposed is not Dan's.

[David Bokovoy]

That is the question I was asked to explain. Sorry if you don't like it!

True enough, I don't at all care for your answer, nor the way you expressed it. But please take this specific discussion to the appropriate thread lest we lose our current focus.

Thanks.

[zerinus]

True enough, I don't at all care for your answer, nor the way you expressed it. But please take this specific discussion to the appropriate thread lest we lose our current focus.

You are the one who is focusing on it at the moment, I am not.