Is the Book of Mormon Satan anachronistic?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

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.

No so.  The Canaanite tales precede Nephi by a thousand years.  I fully discuss the Isaiah 14 issue in my “Śaṭan: Notes on the Gods,” 2012 (version 2), online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/58985133/Satan-Notes-on-the-Gods .  You exhibit a common misunderstanding of that text.

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

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. 

I'm not going to try to defend the historicity of the Book of Mormon too vigorously since you're apparently convinced of it already, and I am a skeptic on that front. But I don't think it's unreasonable, within an LDS worldview, to suppose that the Brass Plates had more information about the figure of Satan than we find in the Old Testament. Bobbieaware has already mentioned the Book of Moses. There is also the fact that the historical Jesus fully accepted the existence of the devil and demons. Exorcisms played a key role in his ministry. As Darrell Bock has noted, "it likely that . . . this element of his ministry was embedded in the earliest layers of the tradition about him. This finding is important because a ministry of exorcism assumes a worldview that involves Satan and the demons. . . . By casting out demons, Jesus pointed to the in-breaking presence and power of the kingdom with its ultimate defeat of evil yet to come. The defeat of Satan and company meant that no longer did the forces of evil have a stranglehold on the destruction of humanity." If Jesus was right about Satan, then the OT texts as we have them are wrong, or at least incomplete.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Nevo

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

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.

Part of that is undoubtedly an artifact of translation. Anachronisms like identifying the Bible and calling the Messiah Jesus seem a little off but make sense if the translator is making it understandable to the target audience.

I would also argue that many doctrines, particularly those relating to the atonement, do not fit with early modern Christians.

[Thinking]

9 hours 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

So you're using a book of scripture that was restored by Joseph Smith (without any source material) to refute an alleged anachronism in another book of scripture that was translated by Joseph Smith. It doesn't get any more circular than that.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No so.  The Canaanite tales precede Nephi by a thousand years.  I fully discuss the Isaiah 14 issue in my “Śaṭan: Notes on the Gods,” 2012 (version 2), online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/58985133/Satan-Notes-on-the-Gods .  You exhibit a common misunderstanding of that text.

In my previous response when I talked about the morning star “in mythology” I was referring to myths that pre-date the Isaiah text including the Canaanite story. I would argue that the reference in Isaiah 14 to the morning star, in fact, doesn’t make sense unless Isaiah is referring to a known mythology. What I am not seeing, though, is how you get from the morning star myth to a modern conception of Satan based solely on pre-exilic sources. Isaiah 14 seems to me to clearly be describing a Babylonian king. The existing mythology behind the morning star reference simply serves to make the description of the king ironic (since it supposes that he was once great before his fall from glory, when in reality he was always nothing but evil).

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I'm not going to try to defend the historicity of the Book of Mormon too vigorously since you're apparently convinced of it already, and I am a skeptic on that front. But I don't think it's unreasonable, within an LDS worldview, to suppose that the Brass Plates had more information about the figure of Satan than we find in the Old Testament. Bobbieaware has already mentioned the Book of Moses. There is also the fact that the historical Jesus fully accepted the existence of the devil and demons. Exorcisms played a key role in his ministry. As Darrell Bock has noted, "it likely that . . . this element of his ministry was embedded in the earliest layers of the tradition about him. This finding is important because a ministry of exorcism assumes a worldview that involves Satan and the demons. . . . By casting out demons, Jesus pointed to the in-breaking presence and power of the kingdom with its ultimate defeat of evil yet to come. The defeat of Satan and company meant that no longer did the forces of evil have a stranglehold on the destruction of humanity." If Jesus was right about Satan, then the OT texts as we have them are wrong, or at least incomplete.

By the time of Christ the concept of the devil had certainly already been developed. But of course that is much too late to influence Nephi’s writings. 

One reason I find it doubtful the brass plates contained a conception of the devil is that the devil doesn’t appear in Hebrew writing for another four or five hundred years. Somebody in Israel should have had this knowledge if it was on the brass plates and yet we see no trace of it in writings from that time period. The concept of Satan arises just when we expect it would, and that is after the Israelites have been exposed to Persian, Greek, and presumably other religions that contained a similar element. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by JarMan

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I would also argue that many doctrines, particularly those relating to the atonement, do not fit with early modern Christians.

If by early modern Christians you mean 16th/17th Century European Christians, I think the explanation of the atonement in the Book of Mormon finds a precise match among the Dutch Arminians. 

[Bobbieaware]

9 hours ago, JarMan said:

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. 

For members of the LDS Church, the  answer to the question you ask in your original post is clearly and convincingly answered by the ancient scriptures that have been restored through a living prophet of God. But you appear to reject these restored scriptures and discard out-of-hand the ready answers to difficult gospel related questions they provide. But I hope you do reasonably understand if you come to an Mormon discussion board looking for answers to some of your thorny issue  questions that it’s highly likely you’re going to get those questions answered from an LDS point of view.

As a believing member of the LDS Church, I rejoice in the fact that answering your seemingly challenging question turns out to be a very easy thing to do, for the restored scriptures testify that the people of the Old Testament did indeed believe in the existence of Satan and well-understood the role he plays as the ultimate oppositional force to God. Additionally, the Latter-day Saints are taught the reason why the Old Testament seems to not speak specifically of Satan is because wicked men of old tampered with the holy scriptures and deliberately deleted whole portions of holy writ that they didn’t like.

I wish you luck as you search for a satisfactory answer to the question you ask and do so without relying on the restored scriptures, a resource that might have otherwise provided you with truly excellent and enlightening answers.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

For members of the LDS Church, the  answer to the question you ask in your original post is clearly and convincingly answered by the ancient scriptures that have been restored through a living prophet of God. But you appear to reject these restored scriptures and discard out-of-hand the ready answers to difficult gospel related questions they provide. But I hope you do reasonably understand if you come to an Mormon discussion board looking for answers to some of your thorny issue  questions that it’s highly likely you’re going to get those questions answered from an LDS point of view.

As a believing member of the LDS Church, I rejoice in the fact that answering your seemingly challenging question turns out to be a very easy thing to do, for the restored scriptures testify that the people of the Old Testament did indeed believe in the existence of Satan and well-understood the role he plays as the ultimate oppositional force to God. Additionally, the Latter-day Saints are taught the reason why the Old Testament seems to not speak specifically of Satan is because wicked men of old tampered with the holy scriptures and deliberately deleted whole portions of holy writ that they didn’t like.

I wish you luck as you search for a satisfactory answer to the question you ask and do so without relying on the restored scriptures, a resource that might have otherwise provided you with truly excellent and enlightening answers.

You're using theology to answer a historical question - a classic category error. The OP was not looking for a discussion of faith statements from the fundamentalist end of the spectrum. The topic is history - an academic discipline.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Gray

[smac97]

15 hours ago, JarMan said:

You've implied the author's assertion may be invalid,

Not really.  I am proposing that the author's assertion is just that: an assertion.  As in "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason."

I don't think the author has made out a prima facie case for the claim you want us to taken as a given, and then proceed with answering questions predicated on that given.

Let me illustrate: Suppose I were to make the following statement: "This article asserts that JarMan is an enforcer and made man in the Lucchese crime family.  If this is the case, it may be unwise to cross him, since he might take offense and murder us in our beds.  Given this apparent circumstance, should any of us interact with JarMan?  Moreover, JarMan seems like a fairly reasonable fellow.  Given his apparent association with organized crime, how do we resolve the discrepancy between his general civility on this board with his apparent murderous proclivities?  Let's discuss that."

I think none of the participants on this board would take this request to "discuss" the "apparent" "discrepancy" seriously, since all I have done is made a series of bald, unsubstantiated accusations.  Assertions, as it were.  And then I am proposing that we take those assertions as established fact and proceed to have a discussion based on them?  I think . . . not.

So it is with your author.  We cannot really have a meaningful, substantive discussion unless and until the presumptions you have presented are plausibly established, at least in a prima facie kind of way.  I don't think the author (or you) have done that, or even come close to it.

15 hours ago, JarMan said:

but since you haven't addressed any particular point in the article, there is really no way to further the conversation on that subject.

Well, the article wasn't really the topic of this post.  Do you want to discuss its contents?  Or the questions in the OP which are based on those contents?  Discussing the former would effectively preclude discussing the latter.

15 hours ago, JarMan said:

The article (not to mention the author's qualifications) both speak for themselves.

Not really.  The article does not, I think, make out a prima facie case.  Do you want have a discussion about that?

15 hours ago, JarMan said:

If you don't agree with the assertion it's up to you to provide a rebuttal.

I am happy to, but that would take us off topic.

15 hours ago, JarMan said:

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.

Then there is really no point in declaring the existence of anachronisms, since - by your own reckoning - the asserted basis for your OP is unproven and unprovable.

15 hours ago, JarMan said:

If you can provide an earlier example of the concept you can falsify the argument.

Or I can reject the argument by simply finding that it fails to present a prima facie case.

15 hours ago, JarMan said:

By a "Miltonian concept of Satan" I mean the unifying of the three roles mentioned in the original post into a single individual.

Look at your statement again: "The 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."

The so-called "anachronism" has not been established, or plausibly argued, as even existing, let alone "magnified ... in the Book of Mormon."  The existence of this anachronism is - by your own reckoning - unproven and unprovable.

So you want us to speculate about unproven/unprovable "anachronisms" in The Book of Mormon?  To defend the truth claims of the LDS church against a critique built on these anachronisms?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

If by early modern Christians you mean 16th/17th Century European Christians, I think the explanation of the atonement in the Book of Mormon finds a precise match among the Dutch Arminians. 

I disagree.

[Bobbieaware]

8 hours ago, Thinking said:

So you're using a book of scripture that was restored by Joseph Smith (without any source material) to refute an alleged anachronism in another book of scripture that was translated by Joseph Smith. It doesn't get any more circular than that.

If Joseph Smith really was a prophet of God who restored ancient scripture, then it works. You don’t believe he was a true prophet, so for you it doesn’t work. What else is there to say? End of discussion...

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

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. 

The explanation is that Mormon theology evolved.  Joseph's ideas were constantly changing from 1829 to 1844.  Oh, and they don't always harmonize either, Joseph wasn't a flawless robot capable of accurately harmonizing all this theology in a systematized way.  He contradicts himself frequently and ideas don't all harmonize, but they never have for any religion in the history of religions anyway, so I'm not sure why this false standard for harmony gets set. 

You're correct that the BoM doesn't square with later ideas about pre-existence, or glories or heaven and hell.  Theologically this can be expressed as line upon line revelation.  This concept of a gradual and changing revelatory process is one of the strongest concepts in Mormonism.  Unfortunately Mormons today don't believe it.  They really don't.  They think revelation isn't a process that is relative to context and time.  They think revelation is like a game show where when God reveals what's behind door #2, and what they see behind door #2 is universal and will always exist in a perpetual frozen state of being. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, JarMan said:

By the time of Christ the concept of the devil had certainly already been developed. But of course that is much too late to influence Nephi’s writings. 

One reason I find it doubtful the brass plates contained a conception of the devil is that the devil doesn’t appear in Hebrew writing for another four or five hundred years. Somebody in Israel should have had this knowledge if it was on the brass plates and yet we see no trace of it in writings from that time period. The concept of Satan arises just when we expect it would, and that is after the Israelites have been exposed to Persian, Greek, and presumably other religions that contained a similar element. 

We already know the BoM contains KJV language and Isaiah text that didn't exist in 600 BCE.  So couldn't all the ideas about Satan just be explained using the Ostler BoM expansion theory?  Seems like the easiest way for those that believe the BoM has some historicity to it, the expansion theory seems pretty flexible here.  

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  I am proposing that the author's assertion is just that: an assertion.  As in "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason."

I don't think the author has made out a prima facie case for the claim you want us to taken as a given, and then proceed with answering questions predicated on that given.

Let me illustrate: Suppose I were to make the following statement: "This article asserts that JarMan is an enforcer and made man in the Lucchese crime family.  If this is the case, it may be unwise to cross him, since he might take offense and murder us in our beds.  Given this apparent circumstance, should any of us interact with JarMan?  Moreover, JarMan seems like a fairly reasonable fellow.  Given his apparent association with organized crime, how do we resolve the discrepancy between his general civility on this board with his apparent murderous proclivities?  Let's discuss that."

I think none of the participants on this board would take this request to "discuss" the "apparent" "discrepancy" seriously, since all I have done is made a series of bald, unsubstantiated accusations.  Assertions, as it were.  And then I am proposing that we take those assertions as established fact and proceed to have a discussion based on them?  I think . . . not.

So it is with your author.  We cannot really have a meaningful, substantive discussion unless and until the presumptions you have presented are plausibly established, at least in a prima facie kind of way.  I don't think the author (or you) have done that, or even come close to it.

Well, the article wasn't really the topic of this post.  Do you want to discuss its contents?  Or the questions in the OP which are based on those contents?  Discussing the former would effectively preclude discussing the latter.

Not really.  The article does not, I think, make out a prima facie case.  Do you want have a discussion about that?

I am happy to, but that would take us off topic.

Then there is really no point in declaring the existence of anachronisms, since - by your own reckoning - the asserted basis for your OP is unproven and unprovable.

Or I can reject the argument by simply finding that it fails to present a prima facie case.

Look at your statement again: "The 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."

The so-called "anachronism" has not been established, or plausibly argued, as even existing, let alone "magnified ... in the Book of Mormon."  The existence of this anachronism is - by your own reckoning - unproven and unprovable.

So you want us to speculate about unproven/unprovable "anachronisms" in The Book of Mormon?  To defend the truth claims of the LDS church against a critique built on these anachronisms?

Thanks,

-Smac

Your motion to dismiss is denied. Feel free to address the merits of the discussion at any time.

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree.

Could you provide an example?

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The explanation is that Mormon theology evolved.  Joseph's ideas were constantly changing from 1829 to 1844.  Oh, and they don't always harmonize either, Joseph wasn't a flawless robot capable of accurately harmonizing all this theology in a systematized way.  He contradicts himself frequently and ideas don't all harmonize, but they never have for any religion in the history of religions anyway, so I'm not sure why this false standard for harmony gets set. 

You're correct that the BoM doesn't square with later ideas about pre-existence, or glories or heaven and hell.  Theologically this can be expressed as line upon line revelation.  This concept of a gradual and changing revelatory process is one of the strongest concepts in Mormonism.  Unfortunately Mormons today don't believe it.  They really don't.  They think revelation isn't a process that is relative to context and time.  They think revelation is like a game show where when God reveals what's behind door #2, and what they see behind door #2 is universal and will always exist in a perpetual frozen state of being. 

The Book of Mormon is the compilation and culmination of 1,000 years of spiritual history of a chosen branch of God's people (not counting the separate Jaredite history, of course). I don't find it very reasonable that these long-established, fundamental doctrines would be so quickly discarded or re-written in a matter of just a few years. Added to - maybe. But we're talking the fundamental questions of Why are we here? Where did we come from? and Where are we going?

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

We already know the BoM contains KJV language and Isaiah text that didn't exist in 600 BCE.  So couldn't all the ideas about Satan just be explained using the Ostler BoM expansion theory?  Seems like the easiest way for those that believe the BoM has some historicity to it, the expansion theory seems pretty flexible here.  

Perhaps a "super-expansionist" theory could explain what I see as 17th Century ideas permeating the Book of Mormon. But at some point a super-expansionist theory becomes an inspired fiction theory. Right now I'm somewhere in between super-expansionist and inspired fiction.

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Your motion to dismiss is denied. Feel free to address the merits of the discussion at any time.

No thanks.  I'll bow out and leave you to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, JarMan said:

The Book of Mormon is the compilation and culmination of 1,000 years of spiritual history of a chosen branch of God's people (not counting the separate Jaredite history, of course). I don't find it very reasonable that these long-established, fundamental doctrines would be so quickly discarded or re-written in a matter of just a few years. Added to - maybe. But we're talking the fundamental questions of Why are we here? Where did we come from? and Where are we going?

Whether the BoM is historical and contains 1000 years of religious history, or the BoM is a 17th - 19th century production that represents the theological evolution of 1800 years of Christian history, doesn't tell us why Joseph would have departed so quickly from the ideas in the BoM.  I think what you see with Joseph is that he's constantly innovating throughout his life.  Pick any period in time, 1829, 1835, 1844, and you'll find significantly different theology.  This can be a strength in that he's adjusting to the circumstances of the day, but it can also be a weakness with the inconsistency and contradictions of earlier teachings. Its a messy history.  

29 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Perhaps a "super-expansionist" theory could explain what I see as 17th Century ideas permeating the Book of Mormon. But at some point a super-expansionist theory becomes an inspired fiction theory. Right now I'm somewhere in between super-expansionist and inspired fiction.

How would you characterize the BoA catalyst theory?  What's ancient, what's modern?  If you're already aware of modern content in the BoM, it seems to me that the % of the content that's modern doesn't really matter.  Somewhere between 1% and 100%.  

[JarMan]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Whether the BoM is historical and contains 1000 years of religious history, or the BoM is a 17th - 19th century production that represents the theological evolution of 1800 years of Christian history, doesn't tell us why Joseph would have departed so quickly from the ideas in the BoM.  I think what you see with Joseph is that he's constantly innovating throughout his life.  Pick any period in time, 1829, 1835, 1844, and you'll find significantly different theology.  This can be a strength in that he's adjusting to the circumstances of the day, but it can also be a weakness with the inconsistency and contradictions of earlier teachings. Its a messy history.  

Just to bring this particular discussion full circle, the reason I brought up the issue that Book of Mormon doctrines were so quickly changed is because that fact stands as a contradistinction to the theory that the Book of Mormon is restoring ancient lost doctrines (such as the existence of Satan).  I suppose it could be argued that both things could be true, but that argument strikes me as a type of special pleading.

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How would you characterize the BoA catalyst theory?  What's ancient, what's modern?  If you're already aware of modern content in the BoM, it seems to me that the % of the content that's modern doesn't really matter.  Somewhere between 1% and 100%.  

I take the Book of Abraham the same way I take the Book of Mormon. As a matter of faith I believe both to have come about the way Joseph Smith indicated. For the Book of Mormon I am developing a secondary hypothesis, but only because I can't ignore obvious signs of the 17th Century that permeate the entire text. I haven't studied the Book of Abraham closely enough to develop a secondary hypothesis, though I recognize there are substantial issues. The Book of Abraham hasn't changed my life or spoken to me in the way the Book of Mormon has. For now I'm content to stand on the sidelines of the Book of Abraham debate and hear what others have to say about it, but ultimately I am open to various explanations such as the catalyst theory.

As far as the amount of modern content in the Book of Mormon, to me it looks like 100%. A more interesting question for me is what amount corresponds to 16th/17th Century Dutch thinking. This appears to be very close to 100%, as well. Only the obvious references to Joseph Smith and his contemporaries seem out of place. Every other time I think I've found something "new" in the Book of Mormon, I find that I can trace it back to Grotius or Arminius or Erastus or to actual events in the Dutch world. And not just on a superficial level.

[clarkgoble]

On 11/28/2017 at 12:06 PM, 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.

I think I discussed this in a thread a few weeks ago. Basically if you look at pre-exilic Israel especially prior to the Josiah reforms then Israel had a pantheon much more in keeping with Canaanite mythology. You then have Satan figures in two ways. First during and after the exile Baal who was basically the Cannanite Yahweh becomes a Satan like figure for Jews. But beyond that to the degree there was similarity between the groups there are devil like figures in the Canaanite pantheon. The first is Yam who is the adversary of Baal/Yahweh. Yam is a sea deity often associated with sea monsters who in the Old Testament creation accounts paralleling Canaanite texts either Yahweh or Eloheim battle. (Job 3:8; Job 40:15-41:26; Amos 9:3; Ps 74:13-23; Ps 104:26; Isaiah 27:1) Yam is cast down from the heavenly mountain. He's often called the serpent. In the Ugaritic Baal cycle El the head god and father of Baal appoints Yam to fight Baal. A secondary figure Baal fights is Mot who represents death. As Baal defeats Mot he arises from the dead. 

There are lots of similar myths suggesting a common source. So El, Baal and Yam become Chronos, Zeus and Poisoden for instance in Greece and Tiamat and Enlil and so forth. Probably this all goes back to Babylon and the Enuma Elish if not earlier.

The point is that in pre-exilic times there were plenty of Satan myths, prior to the Josiah reformations and especially the changes in the exile Judaism most likely resembled Canaanite religion more. Most particularly there are strong reasons to think Lehi and Nephi represent a Jewish tradition prior to the Josiah reforms due to some differences. For instance the lack of Aaronic priesthood. Josiah centralized the cult to the temple in Jerusalem whereas before people sacrificed in high places - Lehi in particular sacrifices on his own not at the temple.

Edit: Sorry missed Robert posting something similar. The sites been flakey for me today - often unaccessable and I've lost several posts.

Edited November 29, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

If by early modern Christians you mean 16th/17th Century European Christians, I think the explanation of the atonement in the Book of Mormon finds a precise match among the Dutch Arminians. 

The part that the atonement was prepared for all but requires faith to take hold of is in common with both. However there are other elements that differ. For instance the Book of Mormon goes to great lengths to portray man as balanced and therefore free whereas the Dutch Arminians have total depravity. The Book of Mormon in Benjamin does talk about the natural man, but in keys ways it is different. Arminius also held to imputed righteousness rather than transformed righteousness which the Book of Mormon teaches. He also pushes justification by faith alone whereas the Book of Mormon famously pushes works (despite some contemporary Mormons attempting to undermine those verses for a more Arminian take). Even the passages that come closest to Arminianism like Mosiah 3 have passages quite at odds such as the idea "blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned."

 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

Just to bring this particular discussion full circle, the reason I brought up the issue that Book of Mormon doctrines were so quickly changed is because that fact stands as a contradistinction to the theory that the Book of Mormon is restoring ancient lost doctrines (such as the existence of Satan).  I suppose it could be argued that both things could be true, but that argument strikes me as a type of special pleading.

I take the Book of Abraham the same way I take the Book of Mormon. As a matter of faith I believe both to have come about the way Joseph Smith indicated. For the Book of Mormon I am developing a secondary hypothesis, but only because I can't ignore obvious signs of the 17th Century that permeate the entire text. I haven't studied the Book of Abraham closely enough to develop a secondary hypothesis, though I recognize there are substantial issues. The Book of Abraham hasn't changed my life or spoken to me in the way the Book of Mormon has. For now I'm content to stand on the sidelines of the Book of Abraham debate and hear what others have to say about it, but ultimately I am open to various explanations such as the catalyst theory.

As far as the amount of modern content in the Book of Mormon, to me it looks like 100%. A more interesting question for me is what amount corresponds to 16th/17th Century Dutch thinking. This appears to be very close to 100%, as well. Only the obvious references to Joseph Smith and his contemporaries seem out of place. Every other time I think I've found something "new" in the Book of Mormon, I find that I can trace it back to Grotius or Arminius or Erastus or to actual events in the Dutch world. And not just on a superficial level.

I very much appreciate this thread and your contributions. thank you.  

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

As far as the amount of modern content in the Book of Mormon, to me it looks like 100%.

I see two possible approaches to the Book of Mormon.

If we take God out of the equation and adopt a strictly naturalistic approach, then I think it is clear that the Book of Mormon contains many anachronistic elements (e.g., its ideas about God, Jesus Christ, the devil, the afterlife, the fall, the atonement, etc.) that point to a modern origin. In this view, religion is a man-made construct that changes over time due to natural forces. YHWH was originally a Midianite tribal deity who later came to be adopted by a subset of Canaanites and over time assimilated attributes of other Canaanite deities, such as El and Baal. Like other Iron Age gods, YHWH needed to be housed and fed and propitiated through animal sacrifice—hence, the temple and its rituals. Israel, as this subset of Canaanites came to be called, also adopted a royal ideology where the king was believed to be divine in some sense and "begotten" by the deity. Contact with Persian dualism during the Exile gave rise to the concept of a devil, a present evil age, an afterlife, and a future hope of restoration. Apocalyptic eschatology developed, anticipating the end of the present age in a climactic final battle between the forces of good and evil, followed by universal resurrection and individual judgment—eternal life for the just and damnation for the unjust. Then, around 30 CE, an itinerant Jewish prophet, wonder-worker, and would-be Davidic king, was crucified by the Romans. His followers came to believe that the God of Israel had raised him from the dead and exalted him to his right hand in the heavens and that the end of the world (and Satan's power) was imminent. Through vigorous proselytizing and various accidents of history, this apocalyptic Jewish cult gained adherents throughout the Roman empire and eventually spread across the world...

But suppose that Jesus really did rise from the dead. Then, it seems to me, everything else is possible. As the Bible Dictionary puts it: "Christianity is founded on the greatest of all miracles, the Resurrection of our Lord. If that be admitted, other miracles cease to be improbable." If one has a conviction that God lives, that he is our loving Heavenly Father, and that Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer, then it makes sense that God would cause the gospel to be preached "from the beginning, being declared by holy angels sent forth from the presence of God, and by his own voice, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Moses 5:58). After all, why wouldn't the souls of those who lived before the time of Christ be as precious to God as the souls of those who came after? (see Alma 24:14; Mosiah 3:13; Alma 26:37). If the gospel of Jesus Christ has indeed been declared from the beginning, then it shouldn't surprise us to see central Christian doctrines (like the existence of sin and the devil, the fall, and the atonement) taught in the Book of Mormon.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Nevo

[carbon dioxide]

On 11/28/2017 at 12:06 PM, 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.

One can use this argument against the New Testament.  All of the sudden this Satan figure is around tempting Jesus and doing other things.  Perhaps Satan was understood much better in Old Testament times than we think but this is not reflective in the Old Testament books. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by carbon dioxide