Is the Book of Mormon Satan anachronistic?

[JarMan]

In this article the author asserts that the Old Testament does not contain the character of Satan (or the devil) as we understand it, and that the ancient Israelites did not even have a concept of Satan until the second century BC or later. In the Book of Mormon Satan plays a prominent role and appears as early as 1Nephi 12 in Nephi's vision. The question is how to resolve this apparent discrepancy. Why does the Book of Mormon present a view of Satan among the Nephites that seems anachronistic to ancient Israel.

This apparent anachronism is magnified in various places in the Book of Mormon, particularly 2Nephi 2, where it presents a Miltonian view of Satan that may not have even existed until the 17th Century. I'll quote from a wikipedia article about the devil in Christianity with the proviso that the wikidpedia article does not provide a source for its assertion.

Quote

Until John Milton created the character of Satan for his Paradise Lost, the different attributes of Satan were usually ascribed to different entities. The angel who rebelled in Heaven was not the same as the ruler in Hell. The ruler of Hell was often seen as a sort of jailer who never fell from grace. The tempting serpent of Genesis was just a serpent. Milton combined the different parts of the character to show his fall from near-divine beauty and grace to his eventual skulking role as a jealous tempter. He was so successful in his characterization of Satan as a romantic hero who "would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven" that his version of Satan has displaced all others.

2Nephi 2 clearly shows Satan in all three roles: as the angel who rebelled in heaven (verses 17 and 18), as the serpent in the Garden of Eden (verse 18), and as the ruler of hell (verse 29). If the wikipedia article is correct that these separate roles were not combined into a single character until the 17th Century, how do we explain its existence in the Book of Mormon? Or, if we are contemplating an early modern composition for the Book of Mormon, does the appearance of this Miltonian concept set a lower temporal boundary on its production?

[thesometimesaint]

No one is born bad. But some of us choose to become it. In LDS Theology we just extent that principle to the Pre-Existence.

[Kevin Christensen]

For starters, try this, and take note of the role of Asael/Azazel in the fallen angel traditions and the Day of Atonement rituals.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

Then consider the antiquity of both the Day of Atonement rituals and the antiquity of the Fallen Angel mythology.

Notably, Nibley's comparison of several Ancient Near Eastern mythologies here, in The Enoch Figure:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1102&index=3

Quote

Greek mythology is an endless procession of familiarly recurring themes—the abominations of the ancients, the deeds of inspired holy men, upheavals of nature, fearful punishments and glorious ascensions, and so on, as Greek imagination and speculation suggest ever more combinations and embellishments of the motifs. Take, for example, the case of Aeacus. At a time when gods were mating with the daughters of men, Zeus, blasting the earth with fires from heaven, took the maiden Aegina to an uninhabited island and there begot Aeacus, causing the island to be peopled by turning its ants into humans and surrounding it with reefs so that no one could approach it.¹⁵³ Others say that Aeacus himself led the people up onto the land where the prehistoric rites of all the Greeks were held atop a high mountain.¹⁵⁴ He was the most pious man who ever lived, and was “held in such honor that men longed to keep their eyes on him . . . and join his holy company on the island of Aegina.” When mankind became treacherous and murderous the earth was smitten with a great drought, and the oracle said that only the prayers of Aeacus, who, incidentally, was married to a water-nymph, the daughter of Nereus [cf. Nir, brother of Noah in the Enoch-legends], could save the race. So he ascended the highest mountain, where “his prayers were answered by a loud thunderclap, clouds obscured the mountain summit that has ever since been an unfailing portent of rain.” ¹⁵⁵ To this day the Athenians call it the cloud of St. Elijah, sure sign of a downpour. Aeacus, greatest of kings and leaders, also built the holy city of Dia (some say Troy), and many sources describe him (as others do Enoch) as one of the three judges of the dead (the other two being Michael and Elijah). His name, according to Worner, means “divine,” and he is to be identified originally with Zeus.¹⁵⁶ Thus we may see that Greeks have all the original building blocks, but they have admittedly lost the blueprints and never tire of trying to put the parts back together again in the proper order. I. E. S. Edwards says much the same thing about the Egyptians.¹⁵⁷

And there are things like this, an early Christian writing, but one with obvious ties of old Egyptian traditions, and reminiscent of our Book of Moses.

http://thinlyveiled.com/abbaton.htm

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

In this article the author asserts that the Old Testament does not contain the character of Satan (or the devil) as we understand it, and that the ancient Israelites did not even have a concept of Satan until the second century BC or later. In the Book of Mormon Satan plays a prominent role and appears as early as 1Nephi 12 in Nephi's vision. The question is how to resolve this apparent discrepancy.

Actually, I think the question would first be to establish the validity of the author's assertion, as your inquiry is predicated on it.

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

Why does the Book of Mormon present a view of Satan among the Nephites that seems anachronistic to ancient Israel.

Let's first establish that the "a concept of Satan" does not pre-date second century BC.  That's not established.

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

This apparent anachronism

"Apparent" being the operative word here.

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

is magnified in various places in the Book of Mormon, particularly 2Nephi 2, where it presents a Miltonian view of Satan that may not have even existed until the 17th Century. I'll quote from a wikipedia article about the devil in Christianity with the proviso that the wikidpedia article does not provide a source for its assertion.

"May not" being the operative phrase here.

A "view of Satan" that "may not have even existed until the 17th century?"  And there is no citation for this assertion?

Whether references in The Book of Mormon to Satan are anachronistic could, I suppose, be discussed if and when these wishy-washy claims are a bit more established and credible.

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

2Nephi 2 clearly shows Satan in all three roles: as the angel who rebelled in heaven (verses 17 and 18), as the serpent in the Garden of Eden (verse 18), and as the ruler of hell (verse 29). If the wikipedia article is correct that these separate roles were not combined into a single character until the 17th Century,

"If" being the operative word here.

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

how do we explain its existence in the Book of Mormon?

I don't think the anachronism is established.  At all.  

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

Or, if we are contemplating an early modern composition for the Book of Mormon, does the appearance of this Miltonian concept set a lower temporal boundary on its production?

This presupposes that there is a "Miltonian concept" in The Book of Mormon, and that this concept is demonstrably anachronistic in a 6th century setting.

The presupposition needs work.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

In this article the author asserts that the Old Testament does not contain the character of Satan (or the devil) as we understand it, and that the ancient Israelites did not even have a concept of Satan until the second century BC or later. In the Book of Mormon Satan plays a prominent role and appears as early as 1Nephi 12 in Nephi's vision. The question is how to resolve this apparent discrepancy. Why does the Book of Mormon present a view of Satan among the Nephites that seems anachronistic to ancient Israel.

This apparent anachronism is magnified in various places in the Book of Mormon, particularly 2Nephi 2, where it presents a Miltonian view of Satan that may not have even existed until the 17th Century. I'll quote from a wikipedia article about the devil in Christianity with the proviso that the wikidpedia article does not provide a source for its assertion.

2Nephi 2 clearly shows Satan in all three roles: as the angel who rebelled in heaven (verses 17 and 18), as the serpent in the Garden of Eden (verse 18), and as the ruler of hell (verse 29). If the wikipedia article is correct that these separate roles were not combined into a single character until the 17th Century, how do we explain its existence in the Book of Mormon? Or, if we are contemplating an early modern composition for the Book of Mormon, does the appearance of this Miltonian concept set a lower temporal boundary on its production?

Thanks to the restoration of much of the formerly lost writings of Moses, as found in the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, we learn that the original, untampered with Old Testament had much to say about Satan and his reality (pay particular attention to the last verse I placed in bold):

12 And it came to pass that when Moses had said these words, behold, Satan came tempting him, saying: Moses, son of man, worship me.

13 And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee?

14 For behold, I could not look upon God, except his gloryshould come upon me, and I were transfigured before him. But I can look upon thee in the natural man. Is it not so, surely?

15 Blessed be the name of my God, for his Spirit hath not altogether withdrawn from me, or else where is thy glory, for it is darkness unto me? And I can judge between thee and God; for God said unto me: Worship God, for him only shalt thou serve.

16 Get thee hence, Satan; deceive me not; for God said unto me: Thou art after the similitude of mine Only Begotten.

17 And he also gave me commandments when he calledunto me out of the burning bush, saying: Call upon God in the name of mine Only Begotten, and worship me.

18 And again Moses said: I will not cease to call upon God, I have other things to inquire of him: for his glory has been upon me, wherefore I can judge between him and thee. Depart hence, Satan.

19 And now, when Moses had said these words, Satancried with a loud voice, and ranted upon the earth, and commanded, saying: I am the Only Begotten, worship me.

20 And it came to pass that Moses began to fearexceedingly; and as he began to fear, he saw the bitterness of hell. Nevertheless, calling upon God, he received strength, and he commanded, saying: Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only will I worship, which is the God of glory.

21 And now Satan began to tremble, and the earth shook; and Moses received strength, and called upon God, saying: In the name of the Only Begotten, depart hence, Satan.

22 And it came to pass that Satan cried with a loud voice, with weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth; and he departed hence, even from the presence of Moses, that he beheld him not.

23 And now of this thing Moses bore record; but because of wickedness it is not had among the children of men. (Moses 1)

[The Nehor]

It appears that Lehi has only a rudimentary idea of Satan and the concept of the Messiah early on. Then a new dispensation opened up and Nephi had an apocalyptic vision. Lehi possibly had one as well or something akin to one. They did not have to get their concept of Satan wholly from their culture.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

For starters, try this, and take note of the role of Asael/Azazel in the fallen angel traditions and the Day of Atonement rituals.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

Then consider the antiquity of both the Day of Atonement rituals and the antiquity of the Fallen Angel mythology.

Notably, Nibley's comparison of several Ancient Near Eastern mythologies here, in The Enoch Figure:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1102&index=3

And there are things like this, an early Christian writing, but one with obvious ties of old Egyptian traditions, and reminiscent of our Book of Moses.

http://thinlyveiled.com/abbaton.htm

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I'm having a hard time understanding the significance of the information you linked to or quoted in the context of my original post. Perhaps you could provide some explanation to help me out.

[JarMan]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, I think the question would first be to establish the validity of the author's assertion, as your inquiry is predicated on it.

Let's first establish that the "a concept of Satan" does not pre-date second century BC.  That's not established.

"Apparent" being the operative word here.

"May not" being the operative phrase here.

A "view of Satan" that "may not have even existed until the 17th century?"  And there is no citation for this assertion?

Whether references in The Book of Mormon to Satan are anachronistic could, I suppose, be discussed if and when these wishy-washy claims are a bit more established and credible.

"If" being the operative word here.

I don't think the anachronism is established.  At all.  

This presupposes that there is a "Miltonian concept" in The Book of Mormon, and that this concept is demonstrably anachronistic in a 6th century setting.

The presupposition needs work.

Thanks,

-Smac

You've implied the author's assertion may be invalid, but since you haven't addressed any particular point in the article, there is really no way to further the conversation on that subject. The article (not to mention the author's qualifications) both speak for themselves. If you don't agree with the assertion it's up to you to provide a rebuttal.

There is really no way to prove that the Miltonian concept of Satan didn't exist until the 17th Century since it is a negative claim. If you can provide an earlier example of the concept you can falsify the argument. By a "Miltonian concept of Satan" I mean the unifying of the three roles mentioned in the original post into a single individual.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Thanks to the restoration of much of the formerly lost writings of Moses, as found in the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, we learn that the original, untampered with Old Testament had much to say about Satan and his reality (pay particular attention to the last verse I placed in bold):

12 And it came to pass that when Moses had said these words, behold, Satan came tempting him, saying: Moses, son of man, worship me.

13 And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee?

14 For behold, I could not look upon God, except his gloryshould come upon me, and I were transfigured before him. But I can look upon thee in the natural man. Is it not so, surely?

15 Blessed be the name of my God, for his Spirit hath not altogether withdrawn from me, or else where is thy glory, for it is darkness unto me? And I can judge between thee and God; for God said unto me: Worship God, for him only shalt thou serve.

16 Get thee hence, Satan; deceive me not; for God said unto me: Thou art after the similitude of mine Only Begotten.

17 And he also gave me commandments when he calledunto me out of the burning bush, saying: Call upon God in the name of mine Only Begotten, and worship me.

18 And again Moses said: I will not cease to call upon God, I have other things to inquire of him: for his glory has been upon me, wherefore I can judge between him and thee. Depart hence, Satan.

19 And now, when Moses had said these words, Satancried with a loud voice, and ranted upon the earth, and commanded, saying: I am the Only Begotten, worship me.

20 And it came to pass that Moses began to fearexceedingly; and as he began to fear, he saw the bitterness of hell. Nevertheless, calling upon God, he received strength, and he commanded, saying: Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only will I worship, which is the God of glory.

21 And now Satan began to tremble, and the earth shook; and Moses received strength, and called upon God, saying: In the name of the Only Begotten, depart hence, Satan.

22 And it came to pass that Satan cried with a loud voice, with weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth; and he departed hence, even from the presence of Moses, that he beheld him not.

23 And now of this thing Moses bore record; but because of wickedness it is not had among the children of men. (Moses 1)

Citing a second anachronistic text to support the first is really just circular logic.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It appears that Lehi has only a rudimentary idea of Satan and the concept of the Messiah early on. Then a new dispensation opened up and Nephi had an apocalyptic vision. Lehi possibly had one as well or something akin to one. They did not have to get their concept of Satan wholly from their culture.

The devil is first mentioned in 1Nephi 12:17 as being represented by the mists of darkness in the vision of the Tree of Life, which both Lehi and Nephi experienced. There is no indication that the devil was a new idea to Nephi.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

In this article the author asserts that the Old Testament does not contain the character of Satan (or the devil) as we understand it, and that the ancient Israelites did not even have a concept of Satan until the second century BC or later. In the Book of Mormon Satan plays a prominent role and appears as early as 1Nephi 12 in Nephi's vision. The question is how to resolve this apparent discrepancy. Why does the Book of Mormon present a view of Satan among the Nephites that seems anachronistic to ancient Israel.

This apparent anachronism is magnified in various places in the Book of Mormon, particularly 2Nephi 2, where it presents a Miltonian view of Satan that may not have even existed until the 17th Century. I'll quote from a wikipedia article about the devil in Christianity with the proviso that the wikidpedia article does not provide a source for its assertion.

2Nephi 2 clearly shows Satan in all three roles: as the angel who rebelled in heaven (verses 17 and 18), as the serpent in the Garden of Eden (verse 18), and as the ruler of hell (verse 29). If the wikipedia article is correct that these separate roles were not combined into a single character until the 17th Century, how do we explain its existence in the Book of Mormon? Or, if we are contemplating an early modern composition for the Book of Mormon, does the appearance of this Miltonian concept set a lower temporal boundary on its production?

The article you linked to I believe is generally accurate.  A personified Satan character is anachronistic to ancient Israel.  The easiest solution for this is to acknowledge that the BoM is a 19th century work, and that Joseph's perspectives about Satan are influenced by his time including Milton's writings which I believe other Mormon's have commented on before.  That's the simplest and most believable explanation to me.  

[JarMan]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The article you linked to I believe is generally accurate.  A personified Satan character is anachronistic to ancient Israel.  The easiest solution for this is to acknowledge that the BoM is a 19th century work, and that Joseph's perspectives about Satan are influenced by his time including Milton's writings which I believe other Mormon's have commented on before.  That's the simplest and most believable explanation to me.  

I'm a believer in Book of Mormon historicity but I've been contemplating a 17th Century production in light of the work done by Skousen and Carmack. I'm actually shocked at the parallels I'm finding between the Book of Mormon and 17th Century thought, particularly among the Dutch theologians and jurists. Just today I discovered that the Dutch National Anthem, written in about 1572, is a fifteen verse chiasmus. It turns out that chiasmus made sort of a comeback in 17th Century Europe and was utilized by several writers including Milton.

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I'm a believer in Book of Mormon historicity but I've been contemplating a 17th Century production in light of the work done by Skousen and Carmack. I'm actually shocked at the parallels I'm finding between the Book of Mormon and 17th Century thought, particularly among the Dutch theologians and jurists. Just today I discovered that the Dutch National Anthem, written in about 1572, is a fifteen verse chiasmus. It turns out that chiasmus made sort of a comeback in 17th Century Europe and was utilized by several writers including Milton.

Its very interesting.  I haven't researched the Skousen/Carmack theory much, but I don't find it very intriguing.  I think its plausible to assume that 17th century ideas remained in the culture and had significant influence still in the 19th century.  

I read Paradise Lost a few years ago and was fascinated at how Mormon it sounds.  

Have you ever read the Westminster Confession of Faith?  Its from the 1600s, lots of really interesting parallels in there to Mormon ideas.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith#Holy_Scriptures.2C_the_Trinity_and_predestination

https://www.opc.org/documents/CFLayout.pdf

 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

In this article the author asserts that the Old Testament does not contain the character of Satan (or the devil) as we understand it, and that the ancient Israelites did not even have a concept of Satan until the second century BC or later. In the Book of Mormon Satan plays a prominent role and appears as early as 1Nephi 12 in Nephi's vision. The question is how to resolve this apparent discrepancy. Why does the Book of Mormon present a view of Satan among the Nephites that seems anachronistic to ancient Israel.

This apparent anachronism is magnified in various places in the Book of Mormon, particularly 2Nephi 2, where it presents a Miltonian view of Satan that may not have even existed until the 17th Century. I'll quote from a wikipedia article about the devil in Christianity with the proviso that the wikidpedia article does not provide a source for its assertion.

Quote

Until John Milton created the character of Satan for his Paradise Lost, the different attributes of Satan were usually ascribed to different entities. The angel who rebelled in Heaven was not the same as the ruler in Hell. The ruler of Hell was often seen as a sort of jailer who never fell from grace. The tempting serpent of Genesis was just a serpent. Milton combined the different parts of the character to show his fall from near-divine beauty and grace to his eventual skulking role as a jealous tempter. He was so successful in his characterization of Satan as a romantic hero who "would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven" that his version of Satan has displaced all others.

2Nephi 2 clearly shows Satan in all three roles: as the angel who rebelled in heaven (verses 17 and18), as the serpent in the Garden of Eden (verse 18), and as the ruler of hell (verse 29). If the wikipedia article is correct that these separate roles were not combined into a single character until the 17th Century, how do we explain its existence in the Book of Mormon? Or, if we are contemplating an early modern composition for the Book of Mormon, does the appearance of this Miltonian concept set a lower temporal boundary on its production?

You are quite wrong.  Satan is a very ancient entity, and precedes the Bible:

Lucifer is the name of Satan before he fell (Isaiah 14:12 ǁ2 Nephi 24:12).  “Lucifer” is not a transliterated Hebrew word but rather is the Latin interpretation of the Hebrew hêylēl ben šāḥar "Bright-One, son of Dawn"[1] = LXX Greek Heosphoros = Latin Lucifer “the Shining One; Lightbringer (Son of the Morning [Venus])” (Isaiah 14:12) = Devil.[2]   Helel is the name or title of a well-known Canaanite god of the Dawn, probably equivalent to Ugaritic hll, and Babylonian elil, "shining-one."[3]

Satan is an evil angel of great power and influence (1 Nephi 13:29 – Moroni 9:3).  Hebrew haśŚaṭan, "the Adversary, Opponent" (Job 1:6-12, Psalm 109:6, Zechariah 3:1-2, 1 Chronicles 21:1, Luke 10:18, Revelation 12:9, 20:2; 1QHodayot frags. 4:6, 14:3, 1QSb 1:8), a fallen angel, whose exploits are celebrated in ancient lore from Canaanite to Renaissance times:

In Isaiah 14:12-15 and the surrounding text, Isaiah is directly referring to and even quoting from a Canaanite poem on the defeat of Mot or ˁAthtar in his battle with Hadad Baˁal-Ṣafon (= ˁElyon, "The Most High," there and in Hebrew Religion),[4] and the Heavenly Council -- the members of which are represented as the circumpolar, eternal stars of God, by Isaiah and by Canaanite and Egyptian myth -- is a witness to that defeat.[5]  The site of the battle in the "recesses of the North" (Hebrew yarketey Ṣafon) mentioned in Isaiah 14:13, refers to the Cosmic and Holy Mountain of Baˁal-Hadad (Jebel 'el-Aqra`) at the mouth of the Orontes River in North Syria,[6] a kind of Canaanite Olympus.

The poem to which Isaiah probably has direct reference is Ugaritic Text 49:I:33-37 (CTA 6), as rendered by the late Mitchell Dahood:[7] 

Quote

And, Athtar the terrible replied: "I cannot rule in the heart of Zaphon."  Athtar the terrible came down from the throne of Baal, and became king in the vast underworld, all of it.

 The Slavonic Enoch, composed in Egypt, probably edited by a Hellenistic Jew at the beginning of the Christian era, and preserved in Slavic monasteries, contains an echo of this and the Judeo-Christian tradition, e.g., 2 Enoch 29:4-5: 

Quote

One from out [of] the order of angels [Satan, cf. 31:4] . . . conceived an impossible thought, to place his throne higher than the clouds above the earth, that he might become equal in rank to my power.  And I threw him from the height.[8]

 This is similar to the Mesopotamian legend of the god Nergal, who descended to the Netherworld at the time of creation.[9]  Adam likewise causes Satan's expulsion from heaven at the time of creation, in the 5th century A.D. "Book of Adam and Eve," I:6: 

Quote

But the wicked Satan set me at naught, and sought the Godhead, so that I hurled him down from heaven.[10]

Such imagery is familiar from the Book of John the Evangelist ("He set his seat above the clouds of heaven"),[11] the Gospel (or Questions) of Bartholomew 4:24-25, the Papyrus Bodmer X, 54:12,[12] and later in Geoffrey Chaucer's "Monk's Tale,"[13] as well as in "Piers Plowman," II:105-11, and certainly in John Milton's "Paradise Lost.”[14]

Devil is a title of Satan, frequently used in Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 11:31, 12:17, 13:1-9, 2 Nephi 2:17-18,27, 9:8-9, 26:22, Alma 12:6, Moroni 7:17).  From Greek diabolos “Accuser, Calumniator, Devil” (LXX Job 1:6, Wisdom of Solomon 2:24, Matthew 4:1, John 8:44, 13:2, Hebrews 2:14, Revelation 12:9-10, 20:2; Apocryphon of James 4:30, 37, 39) > Latin diabolus > Old English dēofol “devil.”[15]  The KJV “devil” translates various Greek words: “slanderer, demon, adversary” = Hebrew šôdēd “spoiler, destroyer”[16] (Job 15:21, Isaiah 16:4, 21:2, 33:1, Jeremiah 6:26).

---

[1] BHS compares Hebrew heylāl “crescent moon”;

[2] LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 726.

[3] S. Langdon in The Mythology of All Races: Semitic, V:145; Chicago Asssyrian Dictionary, I:1, pp. 348-349, elilu, alilu, "brilliant one, brave one, warrior," an epithet of kings.

[4] Both Baˁal-Hadad and YHWH are termed "Cloud-Rider" (Psalm 68:4 [MT 68:5]; cf. Daniel 7:13), both dwell in Mt Ṣafon (Psalms 29:3,10, 48:2 [MT 48:3], Isaiah 14:13), both destroy the great Dragon, or Sea (Psalm 74:12-15, Isaiah 27:1, Job 7:12), and both arrive in a great thunderstorm, with seven thunders or seven lightnings (Psalm 29:3-9; KTU 1.101.3-4 = Ugaritica V.3.3-4) – all discussed by John Day in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, I:548-549.

[5] Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 134, 141-142n, 187, 228, 231-232, 239; Černý, Ancient Egyptian Religion, 51-52; Journal of Egyptian Archeology, 21:5, n. 2; Erman, Literature of the Ancient Egyptians, 142; Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed., 350n; cf. Psalms 48:3 ∥148:3; Enuma eliš V:1.

[6] Hector Avalos in D. N. Freedman, Anchor Bible Dictionary (N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992), VI:1040-1041, citing R. J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge, Mass.: 1972); Michael D. Coogan, Stories from Ancient Canaan (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1978), 13, 22.

[7] Dahood, Psalms, Anchor Bible 16, I:111; cf. UT 77:45-47 (CTA 24), Job 38:18, Isaiah 40:25-26, Luke 10:18, Jude 6, 2 Nephi 2:17-18, 9:8-10, PGP Moses 4:3-4, Abraham 3:26-28, D&C 76:25-38.

[8] R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II:426, § 4.  Cf. F. I. Andersen's translation in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), I:148,154, which include comments on the inclusion there and elsewhere of Sotona/ Satana/ Satanail/ Satanael/ Satanao (cf. Gospel of Bartholomew 4:24-25).

[9] Cf. Giorgio de Santillana & Hertha von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time (Gambit, 1969/ Boston: D. Godine, 1977), 297,323-324,413,417,437,448-449.

[10] Vita Adae et Evae, xii-xvii, in R. H. Charles, APOT, II:137 (Life of Adam & Eve 14:2-3, 15:1, in Nibley, Works, XII:195-196, n. 83); cf. Testament of Levi 3:2, Testament of Dan 5:5-6, 2 Enoch 18:3.  See also K. L. Schmidt, "Luzifer als gefallne Engelsmacht," in Theologische Zeitung, VII (1951), 261-279.

[11] Montague R. James, Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924/1955), 188.

[12] Nibley, Works, XII:196, n. 84; J. K[9] Cf. Giorgio de Santillana & Hertha von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time (Gambit, 1969/ Boston: D. Godine, 1977), 297,323-324, 413, 417, 437, 448-449.

[13] Youngblood, "Fallen Star," Bible Review, 14/6 (Dec 1998):25, 31; see the "Canterbury Tales," frag. VII, lines 1999-2006, and frag. B², lines *3189-*3196, in F. N. Robinson, ed., The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, 2^nd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957), 189.

[14] B. Bamberger, Fallen Angels (N.Y., 1954); Neil Forsyth, The Satanic Epic (Princeton Univ. Press, 2003).

[15] Baugh & Cable, History of the English Language, 3^rd ed., 89; Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, @ diabolos.

[16] LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 656.

For full discussion, see my “Śaṭan: Notes on the Gods,” 2012 (version 2), online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/58985133/Satan-Notes-on-the-Gods  .

Edited November 29, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

The devil is first mentioned in 1Nephi 12:17 as being represented by the mists of darkness in the vision of the Tree of Life, which both Lehi and Nephi experienced. There is no indication that the devil was a new idea to Nephi.

True, but that is a commentary on the mists of darkness. 1 Nephi was written much much later. We get a lot of that in Nephi’s story. He can describe and commentate on things with a much richer understanding than he had when the events took place.

In 2 Nephi 2:17 we get a much more tentative introduction to the Devil:

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.

Sounds less sure and newish to me. He feels the need to back it with scriptural authority (something in the brass plates maybe?) and seems to be reasoning it out with the help of inspiration. It is hard to tell how much of Nephi’s apocalypse was retroactive commentating but it seems Nephi got some understanding of the devil from it.

[JarMan]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its very interesting.  I haven't researched the Skousen/Carmack theory much, but I don't find it very intriguing.  I think its plausible to assume that 17th century ideas remained in the culture and had significant influence still in the 19th century.  

I read Paradise Lost a few years ago and was fascinated at how Mormon it sounds.  

Have you ever read the Westminster Confession of Faith?  Its from the 1600s, lots of really interesting parallels in there to Mormon ideas.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith#Holy_Scriptures.2C_the_Trinity_and_predestination

https://www.opc.org/documents/CFLayout.pdf

 

The Westminster Confession of Faith is essentially Calvinism. There are many similarities, as you have aptly noticed, between Calvinism and the doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon, but there are also some notable differences. The notable differences pertain to predestination, election, free will, and perseverance. Calvinism teaches that God has elected certain people to be saved. These people who God has elected can do nothing of their own will to affect God's grace working in their lives. They cannot even resist the grace given to them. Nor can they ever fall away since God's grace is irresistible.

In the early 1600's some Dutch theologians, who came to be known as Arminians or Remonstrants, disputed these particular points of Calvinism. The Arminians taught that predestination was conditional and that election was conferred based on the acceptance of God's grace. People are able to accept this grace because God has endowed each individual with the light of Christ to distinguish, on a basic level, between good and evil and has granted to them the free agency to make this choice. Once a person has accepted God's grace, that person is still subject to individual apostasy, and therefore must persevere in order to keep their salvation. The Book of Mormon precisely states the Arminian position. It even goes as far as mocking the concept of predestination as we see in Alma 31 with the Zoramites worshiping with set prayer from the Rameumptom. (In the historical Dutch version of events, the Calvinists "won" the debate and the Arminian position was proclaimed heterodox at the Synod of Dort in 1619. As a result the Arminian ministers were expelled from the Dutch Republic.) In the Book of Mormon version, the Nephite converts were expelled by the Zoramites from the land of Antionum.

[JarMan]

36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are quite wrong.  Satan is a very ancient entity, and precedes the Bible:

Lucifer is the name of Satan before he fell (Isaiah 14:12 ǁ2 Nephi 24:12).  “Lucifer” is not a transliterated Hebrew word but rather is the Latin interpretation of the Hebrew hêylēl ben šāḥar "Bright-One, son of Dawn"[1] = LXX Greek Heosphoros = Latin Lucifer “the Shining One; Lightbringer (Son of the Morning [Venus])” (Isaiah 14:12) = Devil.[2]   Helel is the name or title of a well-known Canaanite god of the Dawn, probably equivalent to Ugaritic hll, and Babylonian elil, "shining-one."[3]

Satan is an evil angel of great power and influence (1 Nephi 13:29 – Moroni 9:3).  Hebrew haśŚaṭan, "the Adversary, Opponent" (Job 1:6-12, Psalm 109:6, Zechariah 3:1-2, 1 Chronicles 21:1, Luke 10:18, Revelation 12:9, 20:2; 1QHodayot frags. 4:6, 14:3, 1QSb 1:8), a fallen angel, whose exploits are celebrated in ancient lore from Canaanite to Renaissance times:

In Isaiah 14:12-15 and the surrounding text, Isaiah is directly referring to and even quoting from a Canaanite poem on the defeat of Mot or ˁAthtar in his battle with Hadad Baˁal-Ṣafon (= ˁElyon, "The Most High," there and in Hebrew Religion),[4] and the Heavenly Council -- the members of which are represented as the circumpolar, eternal stars of God, by Isaiah and by Canaanite and Egyptian myth -- is a witness to that defeat.[5]  The site of the battle in the "recesses of the North" (Hebrew yarketey Ṣafon) mentioned in Isaiah 14:13, refers to the Cosmic and Holy Mountain of Baˁal-Hadad (Jebel 'el-Aqra`) at the mouth of the Orontes River in North Syria,[6] a kind of Canaanite Olympus.

The poem to which Isaiah probably has direct reference is Ugaritic Text 49:I:33-37 (CTA 6), as rendered by the late Mitchell Dahood:[7] 

 The Slavonic Enoch, composed in Egypt, probably edited by a Hellenistic Jew at the beginning of the Christian era, and preserved in Slavic monasteries, contains an echo of this and the Judeo-Christian tradition, e.g., 2 Enoch 29:4-5: 

 This is similar to the Mesopotamian legend of the god Nergal, who descended to the Netherworld at the time of creation.[9]  Adam likewise causes Satan's expulsion from heaven at the time of creation, in the 5th century A.D. "Book of Adam and Eve," I:6: 

Such imagery is familiar from the Book of John the Evangelist ("He set his seat above the clouds of heaven"),[11] the Gospel (or Questions) of Bartholomew 4:24-25, the Papyrus Bodmer X, 54:12,[12] and later in Geoffrey Chaucer's "Monk's Tale,"[13] as well as in "Piers Plowman," II:105-11, and certainly in John Milton's "Paradise Lost.”[14]

Devil is a title of Satan, frequently used in Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 11:31, 12:17, 13:1-9, 2 Nephi 2:17-18,27, 9:8-9, 26:22, Alma 12:6, Moroni 7:17).  From Greek diabolos “Accuser, Calumniator, Devil” (LXX Job 1:6, Wisdom of Solomon 2:24, Matthew 4:1, John 8:44, 13:2, Hebrews 2:14, Revelation 12:9-10, 20:2; Apocryphon of James 4:30, 37, 39) > Latin diabolus > Old English dēofol “devil.”[15]  The KJV “devil” translates various Greek words: “slanderer, demon, adversary” = Hebrew šôdēd “spoiler, destroyer”[16] (Job 15:21, Isaiah 16:4, 21:2, 33:1, Jeremiah 6:26).

---

[1] BHS compares Hebrew heylāl “crescent moon”;

[2] LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 726.

[3] S. Langdon in The Mythology of All Races: Semitic, V:145; Chicago Asssyrian Dictionary, I:1, pp. 348-349, elilu, alilu, "brilliant one, brave one, warrior," an epithet of kings.

[4] Both Baˁal-Hadad and YHWH are termed "Cloud-Rider" (Psalm 68:4 [MT 68:5]; cf. Daniel 7:13), both dwell in Mt Ṣafon (Psalms 29:3,10, 48:2 [MT 48:3], Isaiah 14:13), both destroy the great Dragon, or Sea (Psalm 74:12-15, Isaiah 27:1, Job 7:12), and both arrive in a great thunderstorm, with seven thunders or seven lightnings (Psalm 29:3-9; KTU 1.101.3-4 = Ugaritica V.3.3-4) – all discussed by John Day in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, I:548-549.

[5] Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 134, 141-142n, 187, 228, 231-232, 239; Černý, Ancient Egyptian Religion, 51-52; Journal of Egyptian Archeology, 21:5, n. 2; Erman, Literature of the Ancient Egyptians, 142; Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed., 350n; cf. Psalms 48:3 ∥148:3; Enuma eliš V:1.

[6] Hector Avalos in D. N. Freedman, Anchor Bible Dictionary (N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992), VI:1040-1041, citing R. J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge, Mass.: 1972); Michael D. Coogan, Stories from Ancient Canaan (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1978), 13, 22.

[7] Dahood, Psalms, Anchor Bible 16, I:111; cf. UT 77:45-47 (CTA 24), Job 38:18, Isaiah 40:25-26, Luke 10:18, Jude 6, 2 Nephi 2:17-18, 9:8-10, PGP Moses 4:3-4, Abraham 3:26-28, D&C 76:25-38.

[8] R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II:426, § 4.  Cf. F. I. Andersen's translation in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), I:148,154, which include comments on the inclusion there and elsewhere of Sotona/ Satana/ Satanail/ Satanael/ Satanao (cf. Gospel of Bartholomew 4:24-25).

[9] Cf. Giorgio de Santillana & Hertha von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time (Gambit, 1969/ Boston: D. Godine, 1977), 297,323-324,413,417,437,448-449.

[10] Vita Adae et Evae, xii-xvii, in R. H. Charles, APOT, II:137 (Life of Adam & Eve 14:2-3, 15:1, in Nibley, Works, XII:195-196, n. 83); cf. Testament of Levi 3:2, Testament of Dan 5:5-6, 2 Enoch 18:3.  See also K. L. Schmidt, "Luzifer als gefallne Engelsmacht," in Theologische Zeitung, VII (1951), 261-279.

[11] Montague R. James, Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924/1955), 188.

[12] Nibley, Works, XII:196, n. 84; J. K[9] Cf. Giorgio de Santillana & Hertha von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time (Gambit, 1969/ Boston: D. Godine, 1977), 297,323-324, 413, 417, 437, 448-449.

[13] Youngblood, "Fallen Star," Bible Review, 14/6 (Dec 1998):25, 31; see the "Canterbury Tales," frag. VII, lines 1999-2006, and frag. B², lines *3189-*3196, in F. N. Robinson, ed., The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, 2^nd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957), 189.

[14] B. Bamberger, Fallen Angels (N.Y., 1954); Neil Forsyth, The Satanic Epic (Princeton Univ. Press, 2003).

[15] Baugh & Cable, History of the English Language, 3^rd ed., 89; Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, @ diabolos.

[16] LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 656.

For full discussion, see my “Śaṭan: Notes on the Gods,” 2012 (version 2), online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/58985133/Satan-Notes-on-the-Gods  .

As you are probably aware, the key to understanding ancient references to Venus, the morning star, is to realize that Venus can occur early in the morning as a very bright star just above the horizon. But it never can get to its full zenith before the daylight of the sun obscures it -- as if it has fallen from the sky or descended to the underworld. In mythology the morning star usually represents either the coming of dawn or of light (since it is brightest just before dawn), or someone (once having great potential) that ultimately fails. It's clear this second meaning is being referred to in Isaiah 14:12. This chapter is essentially taunting the king of Babylon saying that as once he was a mighty king that oppressed the people, now he has become weak and oppresses the people no longer. In an ironic sense, he has fallen from heaven like the morning star. Most modern translations of the Bible now have "morning star" or "day star" instead of Lucifer.

The other explanation you provide is interesting but it post-dates Nephi's time.

[JarMan]

52 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

True, but that is a commentary on the mists of darkness. 1 Nephi was written much much later. We get a lot of that in Nephi’s story. He can describe and commentate on things with a much richer understanding than he had when the events took place.

In 2 Nephi 2:17 we get a much more tentative introduction to the Devil:

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.

Sounds less sure and newish to me. He feels the need to back it with scriptural authority (something in the brass plates maybe?) and seems to be reasoning it out with the help of inspiration. It is hard to tell how much of Nephi’s apocalypse was retroactive commentating but it seems Nephi got some understanding of the devil from it.

You are astute in identifying Lehi's cautiousness in 2 Nephi 2:17 in supposing that an angel had fallen from heaven and had become the devil. I agree it sounds "less sure and newish." But I should point out that this idea would have been newish in a 17th Century context, as well. What I am beginning to see in the Book of Mormon is a group of people obstensibly steeped in Old Testament thinking and morality and ancient Israelite culture who suddenly and inexplicably start thinking and acting like early modern European Christians.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

Citing a second anachronistic text to support the first is really just circular logic.

That is unless one knows by the Spirit the Church is true and that the Book of Moses is a restoration of the actual writings of Moses, writings that would have been included in the Old Testament if wicked men hadn’t hadn’t deleted the portions of Moses’ writings the prophet Joseph Smith restored by the Spirit of revelation. For the believing, testimony-bearing Latter-Day Saints, the Book of Moses proves the Church in the days of Moses had a knowledge of Satan and  knew of his wicked designs. But if one doesn’t believe the prophet Joseph Smith was truly inspired of God to restore ancient knowledge that was lost, there’s a good chance no satisfactory answer to your question will be in the offing.

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

In the early 1600's some Dutch theologians, who came to be known as Arminians or Remonstrants, disputed these particular points of Calvinism. The Arminians taught that predestination was conditional and that election was conferred based on the acceptance of God's grace. People are able to accept this grace because God has endowed each individual with the light of Christ to distinguish, on a basic level, between good and evil and has granted to them the free agency to make this choice. Once a person has accepted God's grace, that person is still subject to individual apostasy, and therefore must persevere in order to keep their salvation. The Book of Mormon precisely states the Arminian position. It even goes as far as mocking the concept of predestination as we see in Alma 31 with the Zoramites worshiping with set prayer from the Rameumptom. (In the historical Dutch version of events, the Calvinists "won" the debate and the Arminian position was proclaimed heterodox at the Synod of Dort in 1619. As a result the Arminian ministers were expelled from the Dutch Republic.) In the Book of Mormon version, the Nephite converts were expelled by the Zoramites from the land of Antionum.

Well written summary, thanks.  Many also believe the concept of the Godhead in the BoM is modalist and that’s Arminian as well I believe.  

[Nevo]

There is no evidence that any OT writer knew of the figure that 1 and 2 Nephi variously refers to as the devil, Satan, Lucifer, the evil one, that old serpent, the father of lies, etc. As Professor Dolansky correctly pointed out in the article JarMan linked to, the concept of the devil as the great adversary of God and righteousness doesn't appear (in writing, at least) until the intertestamental period.

In his entry on the devil in the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Gregory J. Riley notes:

Quote

The stories of Yahweh in pre-exilic Israel draw upon [Babylonian and Caananite] and other myths to describe the conflicts against his enemies, both divine and human, and his gaining of sovereignty over the other gods of the nations in the council. The great enemies of the gods had been defeated in the mythic past and the human present was at (relative) peace. The world was conceived as a unified whole, with each member, divine and human, fulfilling a proper function. There was as yet no Devil, and the lesser spirits fulfilled their appointed roles. Demons were terrifying but legitimate spirits of calamity, disease, and death, who served the will of the greater gods.

During and after the Babylonian Exile, however, Israel was influenced by the cosmological dualism of Persian Zoroastrianism. This system posited two warring camps of spiritual beings headed by twin but opposite siblings, the Zoroastrian God and Devil, who fought for the loyalty of humans in deadly combat. To assist in the battle, the two had produced armies of lesser spirits, the angels and the demons. . . . Creation was their battlefield and the present age was the time of spiritual warfare. At the end of this age of conflict, there would be a final battle in which the Devil and his hosts would be defeated and destroyed in a fiery Hell, and a new creation and new age would begin in righteousness (p. 245).

Likewise, the entry on Satan in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible states:

Quote

In the OT the term (usually accompanied by the article) is applied to both human and heavenly figures who have been assigned the role of blocking the way of the wrongdoer and to act as an agent of divine judgment (e.g., Num. 22:22, 32; 1 Kgs. 11:14, 23; Ps. 109:6; 1 Chr. 21:1; Job 1–2; Zech. 3:1, 2; cf. 1 Sam. 29:4, where it denotes a potential saboteur in the ranks). The sense here is clearly not a being or personality but a function or status which a being takes up temporarily. . . . In intertestamental, NT, and contemporary Jewish (esp. apocalyptic) literature, the term is used as a proper name to denote a supramundane being who stands in complete opposition to God and is dedicated to frustrating his work" (Jeffrey B. Gibson, “Satan,” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000], 1169).

The Anchor Bible Dictionary entry on Satan, authored by an Evangelical OT scholar, offers a possible "out" for proponents of Book of Mormon historicity: "It may be that the demonizing of the cosmos, as reflected in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, represents the emergence of Israel’s quasi-mythology that was widely embraced throughout the OT period. Such ideas, inimical as they were to orthodox monotheism, would have been repressed by the prophets" (Victor P. Hamilton, “Satan,” Anchor Bible Dictionary [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 987–988).

BYU professor Clyde Williams suggests in the Book of Mormon Reference Companion that "Lehi likely learned from the Plates of Brass much of what he knew about the fall of Lucifer in premortality and his subsequent design for all mankind." Might the Brass Plates have contained an older doctrine that subsequent scribes had suppressed—only to re-emerge in the Persian era? Williams sees the Book of Mormon as "restor[ing] a clearer understanding of Satan, his role in premortality, and his efforts to make mankind share in his misery"—whereas, "by reading the Old Testament, one is left with a very limited and incomplete view of Satan" (p. 701).

Edited November 29, 2017 by Nevo

[Atheist Mormon]

Quote

Is the Book of Mormon Satan anachronistic?

How about Bible?

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

That is unless one knows by the Spirit the Church is true and that the Book of Moses is a restoration of the actual writings of Moses, writings that would have been included in the Old Testament if wicked men hadn’t hadn’t deleted the portions of Moses’ writings the prophet Joseph Smith restored by the Spirit of revelation. For the believing, testimony-bearing Latter-Day Saints, the Book of Moses proves the Church in the days of Moses had a knowledge of Satan and  knew of his wicked designs. But if one doesn’t believe the prophet Joseph Smith was truly inspired of God to restore ancient knowledge that was lost, there’s a good chance no satisfactory answer to your question will be in the offing.

 

I don’t share your all-or-nothing philosophy on accepting the gospel. (In fact, I think that view inevitably collapses under its own weight due to contradiction). I take basic things like God and angels on faith and try to reason on those thing subject to reason. 

[cdowis]

del

Edited November 29, 2017 by cdowis

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

There is no evidence that any OT writer knew of the figure that 1 and 2 Nephi variously refers to as the devil, Satan, Lucifer, the evil one, that old serpent, the father of lies, etc. As Professor Dolansky correctly pointed out in the article JarMan linked to, the concept of the devil as the great adversary of God and righteousness doesn't appear (in writing, at least) until the intertestamental period.

In his entry on the devil in the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Gregory J. Riley notes:

Likewise, the entry on Satan in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible states:

The Anchor Bible Dictionary entry on Satan, authored by an Evangelical OT scholar, offers a possible "out" for proponents of Book of Mormon historicity: "It may be that the demonizing of the cosmos, as reflected in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, represents the emergence of Israel’s quasi-mythology that was widely embraced throughout the OT period. Such ideas, inimical as they were to orthodox monotheism, would have been repressed by the prophets" (Victor P. Hamilton, “Satan,” Anchor Bible Dictionary [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 987–988).

BYU professor Clyde Williams suggests in the Book of Mormon Reference Companion that "Lehi likely learned from the Plates of Brass much of what he knew about the fall of Lucifer in premortality and his subsequent design for all mankind." Might the Brass Plates have contained an older doctrine that subsequent scribes had suppressed—only to re-emerge in the Persian era? Williams sees the Book of Mormon as "restor[ing] a clearer understanding of Satan, his role in premortality, and his efforts to make mankind share in his misery"—whereas, "by reading the Old Testament, one is left with a very limited and incomplete view of Satan" (p. 701).

If we treat 2 Nephi 2 as restoring an ancient understanding of Satan it leads to several problems. The first problem, which I have already brought up, is that the Book of Mormon account of the Garden of Eden suddenly and mysteriously appears in 17th Century European poetry. Even the idea that Satan wanted mankind to share in his misery is a 17th Century poetic idea. (But perhaps someone can show me an example of this particular characterization of Satan in an earlier work.) Are we to believe that a fundamental understanding of the most famous of all Biblical stories disappeared in 600 BC only to appear in works of fiction some 2200 years later?

But the other problem with this long-lost-but-preserved-on-the-brass-plates explanation is that from the standpoint of LDS theology, 2 Nephi 2 gets some of the major details “wrong” when it should instead be restoring truth. The Mormon view is that Lucifer’s fall occurred in the pre-existence. The traditional Christian view - that is to say the Miltonian view - knows of no pre-existence but believes that when God created the heavens and the earth he placed angels in the heavens. Lucifer then led a rebellion amongst these angels and that is what is considered to be the War in Heaven. This traditional view is what is apparently being described in the Book of Mormon since there is no indication anywhere in the Book of Mormon of the pre-mortal existence as we currently understand it. The second “incorrect” detail in this story is that the devil seeks to reign over people after death in his own kingdom, which is hell. In fact, the Book of Mormon throughout presents a clear heaven-hell dichotomy with Satan ruling hell. This is obviously incompatible with LDS belief in the three degrees of glory. But it is perfectly compatible with traditional Christianity since the 17th Century.