Is the Book of Mormon Satan anachronistic?

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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."

 

The Arminian concepts of total depravity and imputed righteousness are not the same concepts found in Calvinism and Lutheranism. Calvinists and Lutherans teach that man can do absolutely nothing of his own accord to affect his salvation because of the fall. He can't even choose to accept or reject Christ's grace since a choice is a "work" and grace is given without works. Arminians, on the other hand, teach that man can choose to accept or reject the atonement, but only if grace has been first bestowed upon him (a "prevenient" or enabling grace) that ensures man is still in no way the author, or first mover, toward his own goodness and ultimately his salvation. This doctrine is found in several places in the Book of Mormon. Consider 2 Nephi 2:26, for example. The Messiah redeems us from the fall. The redemption mentioned here isn't salvation - it's the prevenient grace that Arminians talk about. Notice that the result of being "redeemed" in this verse is that we gain free agency. We're "free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil" (2 Nephi 2:27). The concept of choice in our own salvation or damnation (having first been acted upon by Christ's grace) is one of the defining elements of Arminianism. Another defining element is the idea of "resistible grace" by which individuals can apostatize and lose their assurance of salvation through sin. Calvinists and Lutherans teach that God bestows grace upon his elect, and since he is all-powerful, the elect cannot become wicked and thus lose their salvation. The Book of Mormon, of course, matches the Arminian view in it's constant exhortations to endure to the end.

As for the idea in the Book of Mormon that God's grace is sufficient for those who died in ignorance, I will have to address that later when I have some more time.

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

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.

The idea that challenges my thinking is that in the Book of Mormon we have a Hebrew people whose very identity depends on the teachings on the brass plates. (Better that one man should perish than a nation dwindle and perish in unbelief.) With such an emphasis on the ancient scriptures I would expect Nephite teachings, actions, culture and philosophy to resemble the ancient Israelites on more than just a superficial level. I opened the thread with a discussion about a single doctrinal issue (Satan) that the OT doesn’t contain but which the Nephites talk about very earlier on. The response with the most merit (but still not without significant problems as I’ve tried to point out), in my opinion, is that those teachings must have been contained on some of those “other books” on the brass plates. Although the unknowns regarding the brass plates offer a convenient out on doctrinal issues, I don’t think we can use the same excuse when it comes to cultural and philosophical issues.

As an example, the OT thinking regarding what makes an action morally acceptable seems to be this: what is moral is that which God commands (or does not expressly forbid). So we have slavery as an acceptable practice (with some limitations) and occasionally the command to kill every breathing thing whether man, woman, child or animal. We also have offensive wars for the purpose of killing the wicked. None of these things is ever considered morally acceptable in the Book of Mormon. So what changed?

In the old world this sea change regarding what was considered morally acceptable took place over a period of thousands of years. Key influences were Greek philosophy which tried to derive natural law from reason and Christianity with its stress on loving all, even your enemies. During the 17th Century these ideas were combined amidst the suffering of the deadliest war in human history to that point (the 30 years war) and we finally get a comprehensive view of morality that is identical to what we find in the Book of Mormon. (And yes, it was the Dutch Arminians who developed this system.)

Is it realistic for the Nephites to have made essentially an instantaneous change to their philosophy and culture when they were so invested in their foundational scriptures and without the influence of Greek philosophy, Christ’s teachings, or the intervening 2,000-plus years of history to inform them?

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

Thank you. That’s very nice of you to say. 

[JarMan]

15 hours 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.

I know you are sincere in your beliefs. I guess we all have to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. 

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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. 

According to the article I linked to, we start seeing Satan-like figures in Hebrew texts in the second century BC after exposure to Persian and Greek religions so it’s not a total surprise that Satan shows up in the NT. 

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

According to the article I linked to, we start seeing Satan-like figures in Hebrew texts in the second century BC after exposure to Persian and Greek religions so it’s not a total surprise that Satan shows up in the NT. 

The Satan like figures of the 2cd century onwards definitely exhibit more Persian and Greek influence. However it's also pretty standard to assume the Jews had Canaanite like beliefs up to Josiah as I mentioned. Starting with Josiah's reforms and then by the shock of the exile they become strict monotheists and start picking up angelology in Babylon from influences there. So effectively you have them originally having a devil like figure, losing the figure, then regaining the figure with more of a Persian thrust.

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

The Arminian concepts of total depravity and imputed righteousness are not the same concepts found in Calvinism and Lutheranism.

 I don't think I claimed it was. Just that the total depravity of Arminius isn't what we see in the Book of Mormon. Quoting Arminius:

"In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.  And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.   For Christ has said, ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’  St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: ‘Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty.  But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing.’  That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man."

The Book of Mormon in place of this idea emphasizing persuasion. (e.g. 2 Ne 33:4) Not only that but instead of being in a state that is wounded in our free will instead we are perfectly balanced. 

 

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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. 

It's worth noting that these characteristics of the devil that are unique to 2cd century onwards are missing from the Book of Mormon. We have only a few main ideas on the devil in the Book of Momon

1. fallen angel (2 Nephi 2, 9, 

2. ties to serpent (Mosiah 16)

3. symbolic dualism (Yahweh/Devil) with devil representing evil

4. tied to underworld/hell

Now one can complain about the dualism which many attribute to the rise of dualism in Persia with Zoroastrianism. However there's dualism in the ANE prior to this. (The two ways being the obvious example)  The counterargument are the OT passages where both good and evil come from God (i.e. 1 & 2 Samuel vs. 1 & 2 Chronicles) whereas in the Book of Mormon evil comes from the devil. The obvious example of this is the difference in say 2 Sam 24:1-2 vs. 1 Chr 21:1-2. So the big issue in the Book of Mormon isn't the problem of the devil but the problem of dualism. The other elements are all in Canaanite treatments of Yam and Mot.

While the view once was that all dualism came from Persia, that's no longer the mainstream view. For one, the Canaanites were very dualistic. Mot, the god of the underworld, is a great example. Indeed some see the emphasis in the curses during the exodus that the angel of death (Ex 12:11-12) was from Yahweh as a way of emphasizing Yahweh's control against the existing view of Mot as fulfilling that role. While one might see this as an argument against dualism it ends up being the opposite since it presupposes dualism as a concern in this case. Put an other way, Canaanite dualism is the default that Judaism is reacting against. This isn't to dispute the later influence of Zoroastrianism but even with regards to the Dead Sea Scrolls many see Canaanite influence more than Persian.

Now angelology and demonology seems unique to Babylon and enters into Judaism clearly there. Interestingly that's missing from the Book of Mormon. 

[cinepro]

I don't know about ancient Israelites and Satan, but I have always wondered why the Satan in the Book of Mormon just isn't very smart.  I mean, we're always being told how cunning he is, but when his plans and "deceptions" are described, they're really not that impressive.  Your average atheist in 2017 is much sharper in their arguments against God than even the most cunning Satan-inspired atheist in The Book of Mormon.

I think part of the problem is the "greatest song" conundrum.  If someone is making a movie about a songwriter that writes the greatest song of all-time, then what do you do for the song?  Because the movie kind of falls apart when the audience hears the song and it isn't that good, because even though they're the greatest songwriter in the movie, the song was actually written by an average songwriter because Irving Berlin or Paul McCartney wasn't available. 

Likewise, if you're writing a story about someone debating a Prophet and this person is getting their arguments straight from Satan, then if that person's arguments are bush-league philosophy (if only to make the Prophet sound amazing when he "counters" the argument with his inspired wisdom and sharp intellect), then maybe that person wasn't actually getting their arguments from Satan.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

 I don't think I claimed it was. Just that the total depravity of Arminius isn't what we see in the Book of Mormon. Quoting Arminius:

"In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.  And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.   For Christ has said, ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’  St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: ‘Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty.  But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing.’  That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man."

The Book of Mormon in place of this idea emphasizing persuasion. (e.g. 2 Ne 33:4) Not only that but instead of being in a state that is wounded in our free will instead we are perfectly balanced. 

 

I think the total depravity of Arminius IS what we see in the Book of Mormon. In the beginning of your quote, Arminius is describing the nature of man due to the fall. Abinadi gives a comparable description of man after the fall in Mosiah 16:3-4.

Quote

3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.

4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.

The important thing is that both Arminius and Abinadi are emphasizing the depravity of man, as it would exist but for the grace of God. It is not a permanent state they are describing. They both stress that it is only because of God's grace that man can escape the state that has been brought about because of the fall. Abinadi is using the concept of redemption in verse 4 in the same way Nephi uses it in 2 Nephi 2:26, which is as a redemption from the fall. This is the "Divine grace" that Arminius is talking about in your quote. The persuasion you are citing in 2 Nephi 33:4 is the persuasion of those who have already accepted divine grace, but who now need to endure to the end (or "persevere" in Arminian terms).

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I think the total depravity of Arminius IS what we see in the Book of Mormon. In the beginning of your quote, Arminius is describing the nature of man due to the fall. Abinadi gives a comparable description of man after the fall in Mosiah 16:3-4.

I don't think I'd agree. The key issue is how one can do good. The Book of Mormon just seems closer to Pelegius than Arminius there. 

So while Abinadi, Benjamin and even contemporary Mormons see humans a deprived in a way, it's simply not the way Arminius does. It's true that without the atonement we're fallen. You argue later that the persuasion is just "to those who have already accepted divine grace" but the Book of Mormon simply doesn't say that. Now you might say that grace is already there for everyone so anyone persuaded already has grace. That would then imply that no one is fallen. So I think you're so focused on making this parallel that you're missing the differences. So if everyone is already redeemed from the fall then what's Benjamin's natural man? You're trying to have it both ways.

[JarMan]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The Satan like figures of the 2cd century onwards definitely exhibit more Persian and Greek influence. However it's also pretty standard to assume the Jews had Canaanite like beliefs up to Josiah as I mentioned. Starting with Josiah's reforms and then by the shock of the exile they become strict monotheists and start picking up angelology in Babylon from influences there. So effectively you have them originally having a devil like figure, losing the figure, then regaining the figure with more of a Persian thrust.

Your argument is built on several suppositions: 1) that the ancient Jews incorporated specific Canaanite beliefs about a Satan-like figure; 2) that the Satan-like figure beliefs morphed into the Book of Mormon conception of Satan; 3) that these beliefs were prominent and important enough to have been preserved on the brass plates; 4) that these prominent and important beliefs were expunged from the Jewish religion such that no trace of them can be found.

Now let's look at how these beliefs were restored to their purity. 1) Some 400 years pass since the beliefs have been completely erased from the religion; 2) the Jews begin to incorporate Persian and Greek ideas about Satan into their religion; 3) the NT writers incorporate an understanding of Satan into their teachings that, although there are similarities to the Book of Mormon, is still a different conception; 3) 1,600 years pass; 4) European poets writing works of fiction develop a concept of Satan which includes a) Satan as a fallen angel, b) Satan as the serpent of the Garden of Eden, c) symbolic dualism, d) Satan as the ruler of hell, and e) the idea that Satan seeks for man to be miserable like he is; 5) The Book of Mormon is published 200 years later in which Satan has the same characteristics described in these well known works of fiction. This conception of Satan is now said to be the same conception that was lost some 2,400 years earlier.

Edited to add the following: But even this conception was soon changed by Joseph Smith’s revelations which placed Satan’s fall into a before-unknown pre-mortal existence and changed the conception of hell. We waited 2,400 years to have a long lost doctrine restored only to see it changed again within about three years. 

Edited December 1, 2017 by JarMan

[JarMan]

39 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think I'd agree. The key issue is how one can do good. The Book of Mormon just seems closer to Pelegius than Arminius there. 

So while Abinadi, Benjamin and even contemporary Mormons see humans a deprived in a way, it's simply not the way Arminius does. It's true that without the atonement we're fallen. You argue later that the persuasion is just "to those who have already accepted divine grace" but the Book of Mormon simply doesn't say that. Now you might say that grace is already there for everyone so anyone persuaded already has grace. That would then imply that no one is fallen. So I think you're so focused on making this parallel that you're missing the differences. So if everyone is already redeemed from the fall then what's Benjamin's natural man? You're trying to have it both ways.

I hope you will let me try to clarify my position a little bit. Here is a better description of the Arminian position written by Simon Episcopius, former student of Arminius.

Quote

III. and IV. On the operation of grace in the conversion of man

1. Man has not saving faith from and of himself nor has he it 
from the powers of his own free will; because in a state of sin he 
is able from and of himself to think, will, or do nothing that is good, 
nothing that is indeed savingly good; of which description, in the 
first place, is saving faith. But it is necessary that, by God in 
Christ through his Holy Spirit, he should be regenerated and 
renewed in his understanding, affections, will, and in all his powers, 
that he may be capable of rightly understanding, meditating, willing, 
and performing such things as are savingly good. 

2. We propound the grace of God to be the beginning, the progress, 
and the completion of every good thing; so that even the 
man who is born again is not able without this preceding and  
prevenient, this exciting and following, this accompanying and  
co-operating grace, to think, to will, or to perform any good, or to 
resist any temptations to evil: so that good works, and the good 
actions which any one is able to find out by thinking, are to be  
ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. 

3. Yet we do not believe that all the zeal, care, study, and pains, 
which are employed to obtain salvation, before faith and the Spirit 
of renovation, are vain and useless; much less do we believe that 
they are more hurtful to man than profitable. But, on the  
contrary, we consider that to hear the word of God, to mourn on  
account of the commission of sin, and earnestly to seek and desire 
saving grace and the Spirit of renovation, (none of which is any man 
capable of doing without Divine grace,) are not only, not hurtful 
and useless, but that they are rather most useful and exceedingly 
necessary for obtaining faith and the Spirit of renovation. 

4. The will of man in a lapsed or fallen state, and before the call 
of God, has not the capability and liberty of willing any good that 
is of a saving nature, and therefore we deny that the liberty of 
willing as well what is a saving good, as what is an evil, is present to 
the human will in every state or condition. 

5. Efficacious grace, by which any man is converted, is not 
irresistible: and though God so affects the will of man by his word and 
the inward operation of his Spirit, as to confer upon him a  
capaility of believing, or supernatural power, and actually causes man 
to believe; yet man is of himself capable to spurn and reject this 
grace, and not believe; and; therefore, also, to perish through his 
own culpability. 

6. Although, according to the most free and unrestrained will of 
God, there is very great disparity or inequality of Divine grace, yet 
the Holy Spirit either bestows, or is ready to bestow, upon all and 
upon every one to whom the word of faith is preached, as much 
grace as is sufficient to promote in its gradations the conversion of 
men; and therefore grace sufficient for faith and conversion is con- 
ceded not only to those whom God is said to be willing to save  
according to his docrine of absolute election, but likewise to those who 
are in reality not converted. 

What is important here is Episcopius' ordo salutis ("order of salvation"). First is prevenient grace which, without it, man would have no freedom to exercise faith. I've stated this idea in the negative as Episcopius does. But, as a positive assertion, prevenient grace is the gift of moral agency. The Book of Mormon states is this way, "And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves". Redemption from the fall as described in the Book of Mormon is equivalent to prevenient grace as described by Episcopius as follows: they are necessary because of the fall, are given freely by Christ to all, and result in moral agency. Redemption from the fall is not eternal salvation in the same way that prevenient grace is not saving grace.

The second step in Episcopius' ordo salutis is the exercising of faith in Christ after the "call of God" wherein man uses his moral agency to accept or reject Christ. "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man" (Mosiah 3:19). Thus King Benjamin's "natural man" is he who has not reached the second step.

Thirdly, Christ bestows "efficacious grace" on the man who has exercised his free will towards Christ. This grace serves to support man's conversion "in its gradations" and eventually to save him. This is identical to the perfecting and saving grace mentioned in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 25:23 and Moroni 10:33, for example).

As far as 2 Nephi 33:4 is concerned, Arminians believe in persuasion both for proclaiming the gospel and for perfecting the saints, to use the familiar Mormon phrases. So I'm not sure how you see this verse as being is in any way contrary to Arminianism.

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

Your argument is built on several suppositions: 1) that the ancient Jews incorporated specific Canaanite beliefs about a Satan-like figure; 2) that the Satan-like figure beliefs morphed into the Book of Mormon conception of Satan; 3) that these beliefs were prominent and important enough to have been preserved on the brass plates; 4) that these prominent and important beliefs were expunged from the Jewish religion such that no trace of them can be found.

That's not supposition. It's in the Hebrew Scriptures. Isaiah 14 is paraphrasing a Canaanite "devil" myth. These things simply weren't fully expunged. Further outside of short period of reforms under Hezekiah and Josiah Jerusalem and even the temple housed many cults and Judaism was fairly syncretic in nature. Indeed that's the whole point of Josiah's reforms was to purge such elements from Judaism. So it seems odd you question whether such things were in Judaism. Most of the history of the Kings of Judah is a history of just such mixing with Canaanite religion!

'Then Athtar the Awesome climbed Mount Zaphon,
Ascended the throne of Ba'al the Almighty.
But his feet did not reach the footstool,
His head did not touch the headrest.
Then, Athar the Awesome spoke,
. . . . .
'I cannot serve as king,
I cannot dwell on the heights of Zaphon!'
So, Athtar the Awesome descended,
Stepped down from the throne of Ba'al the Almighty.
He became king of the Underworld,
Lord of the River of the Dead.'
(Victor Matthews, Don Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels 166).

Needless to say Isaiah 14 is quoted in the Book of Mormon. Likewise as I noted earlier (and gave references) the battle between YHWH and Leviathan is the battle of the Baal Cycle with Yam and Baal. The connection between Canaanite religion and early Jewish religion is pretty well studied and accepted. This is a very, very well established mainstream scholarly view. Especially over the last 40 years. 

Regarding the Brass Plates we don't know what was on them. There appears to be at least reason to thinks bits of Deuteronomy were in it although we don't know how much the Brass Plates were affected by the Josiah reforms or the lost book of law (often assumed to be Deuteronomy). As I said there are strong reasons to think Lehi came from a different tradition than Josiah, perhaps due to his connection to the northern Kingdom. However we do know parts of Isaiah and some proto parts of deutero-isaiah were on it. There's some semblance of the Genesis 2 creation account although probably not in the same form. As I mentioned one of the Canaanite devil like figures is a snake much like the Genesis 2 story. So that may predate the writing of Genesis 2 in Babylon.

Quite a few scholars going back a long time have noted Canaanite parallels to Genesis 2 although some didn't get much acceptance. (The idea that the snake was Baal for instance) Marjo Korpel and Johannes de Moor have a popular theory using the Ugaritic texts that Genesis 2 is based upon El, the creator and his wife Asherah. A devil/god called Horon attempts to dethrone El (much like Athtar did Baal above) and his cast down from the mountain of the gods. In revenge he transforms the tree of life to a tree of death and envelops the world in poisonous fog. Adam is then sent down to restore life but Horon as a serpent bites him. Adam and Eve then lose their immortality. There are elements of their thesis that is controversial though due to gaps in the Ugaritic texts. 

The broader mesopotamian Gilgamesh epic also has a snake that ate the plant of life Gilgamesh sought keeping Gilgamesh from immortality. This is known to have been in circulation in Palestine due to fragments found at Megiddo dating to 1400 BCE. This is less persuasive of course due to the bigger differences. Although it also shows how common the broad outlines of these myths were in the region.

In any case, were the Book of Mormon authentic then these scholars would think that a bulls eye for the Canaanite model of pre-exilic devil. My point is just that 1. not a lot is known about pre-exilic Israel especially the northern Kingdom and 2. what is know strongly suggests strong similarities to the Canaanite pantheon.

I must admit that it seems odd you are so convinced Arminius is the source of the Book of Mormon because of only parallels yet dismiss pretty clear parallels to Canaanite myth even though they exactly fit the purported location and time of the book. Why is that?  It seems a double standard. But that's neither here nor there. I fully agree the Book of Mormon has dualistic elements but I also don't think it has the exact devil of the later period. There are important differences.

A final note. While most apocalyptic literature is from the second temple period some pre-dates the exile. Dualism is of course a characteristic of apocalyptism which is why most date it to persian influence. However Isaiah 24-27 is a pre-exilic apocalypse. Many of the Book of Mormon devil features have some parallel to this early apocalypse. (See for example Isaiah 26:14-19) While typically Isaiah's apocalypse isn't seen as dualism proper of the Zoroastrian type there are strong dualistic presentations in chapter 26. We have shade vs. light for instance as a type for the two classes of dead one of whom YHWH raises to life. (Scholars dispute whether this should be considered resurrection or not, but one can see why one might) This dualism becomes the righteous and the wicked. In this apocalypse of Isaiah we also have that cosmic dualistic battle from the Canaanite myth.

   In that day, YHWH will punish

      with his hard and great and strong sword

  Leviathan the twisting serpent

    Leviathan, the crooked serpent

    and he will slay the dragon in the sea (Is 27.1 //Ps 74:10-15)

 

So saying there isn't a Canaanite devil in the Old Testament is just factually wrong. The question is more what the nature of the devil is in the Book of Mormon that can't be explained by Canaanite religion but only later Persian influences. 

Edited December 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, JarMan said:

Thirdly, Christ bestows "efficacious grace" on the man who has exercised his free will towards Christ. This grace serves to support man's conversion "in its gradations" and eventually to save him. This is identical to the perfecting and saving grace mentioned in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 25:23 and Moroni 10:33, for example).

As far as 2 Nephi 33:4 is concerned, Arminians believe in persuasion both for proclaiming the gospel and for perfecting the saints, to use the familiar Mormon phrases. So I'm not sure how you see this verse as being is in any way contrary to Arminianism.

I think you're misreading 2 Nephi a bit. My sense is that you're taking say 2 Nephi 2 to mean that the effects of the fall are immediately taken away so that man can choose good or evil. Yet that's not really what it says. Rather the reason men are free is because they're able to repent. It's not that men are redeemed immediately at the time of Adam but as 2 Ne 2:26 says "the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall." That is you're missing the temporal element that the Book of Mormon emphasizes. 

Likewise 2 Nephi 25:23 doesn't say what you're taking it to say. Rather it is explicit that they attempt to be reconciled with God. The grace is always offered but man has to choose to take it up. I certainly agree this is similar to Arminianism yet there are key differences. Your (4) makes this difference abundantly clear. We have to be careful not to make grace so generic that it fits not only Arminianism but all Christianity. The fact is that the Book of Mormon emphasizes the word of God teaching people what to do. While grace is a very broad term, especially in the Protestantism of the early 19th century, the emphasis of the Book of Mormon seems quite different. 

Now certainly the Book of Mormon isn't Calvinistic. But I think you're just over broadening what Arminianism relates to the Book of Mormon. 

I'd add that there are only so many ways to conceive of Grace. Once you reject the Calvinistic view and the Pelegian view that it's just knowledge there's not a whole lot left. If we mean by grace forgiveness and transformation then of course the Book of Mormon will have that. But one can hardly say that's just Arminianism. Rather it's a rather mainstream type of Christianity one finds broadly. You raise Arminius but of course the Catholic doctrine is that grace is the help God gives us to respond to his call to become adopted children and partakers of his nature. I wonder if you aren't so focused on Arminianism vs. Calvinism that you miss the broader discourse of grace.

More to the point though I think you dismiss the Arminian conceptions of original sin and total depravity too fast relative to the Book of Mormon claims. If the prevenient grace of Arminianism is interpreted as broadly as you are doing it tends to lose its meaning. There is no attribution of sin due to the fall in the Book of Mormon. Man is cut off from God and man will die (2 Ne 9) but man is not inherently sinful because of the fall. The concern in 2 Nephi 9 is our mortality making us subject to death and therefore the devil. (That old Canaanite Baal/Mot myth is much more here than Arminianism) The metaphor is simply different and is based upon Isaiah's political prophecies taken apocalyptically. There's just not a whole lot of Arminianism in 2 Nephi 9. There just isn't. Mosiah 3 is the most Arminian like text in the Book of Mormon IMO So I know Arminians distinguish between sins of ignorance and sins of presumption much like Mosiah 3. Although as they note that is also a distinction in the Old Testament.

Put an other way, I think the Arminian elements are just places where those people got things right. However there are key places where they didn't and I think the fall is one of those. You do find places where Arminius agrees with the Book of Mormon, yet the Book of Mormon clearly sees the fall as a good thing. Arminius doesn't. Further Arminius thinks that in Adam all have sinned. Even Benjamin with his dualism of the natural man and saint doesn't go that far. To the contrary instead of saying everyone sins through Adam Benjamin says "even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not be saved;" That is he rejects sin not because of the atonement but because they can't sin. You are trying to say this is just Arminius' prevenient grace but that is a key difference is that the Book of Mormon rejects inherent sin due to the fall. We're fallen which gives us a propensity to sin but it is not the same as being sinful. While God's grace atones for ignorant sins, that's different from Adam's sin. 

Certainly much of the rest we agree with Arminius on - but those are rather generic elements. To be fair, some Armininians differ from Aminius on this point (most reformed Baptists for instance). But that just highlights the problem with the broadness of the term Arminianism. The fact is that the key passage on acting is Alma 12:31 which strongly states that humans were placed by the fall "in a state to act according to their wills and pleasures whether to do evil or to do good." Which God persuades people has has grace ready if they come to him, the idea that only through grace they can do good is alien to the text. The atonement sanctifies and justifies through repentance. There Arminius is right. His ideas of the fall are wrong.

Edited December 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's not supposition. It's in the Hebrew Scriptures. Isaiah 14 is paraphrasing a Canaanite "devil" myth. These things simply weren't fully expunged. Further outside of short period of reforms under Hezekiah and Josiah Jerusalem and even the temple housed many cults and Judaism was fairly syncretic in nature. Indeed that's the whole point of Josiah's reforms was to purge such elements from Judaism. So it seems odd you question whether such things were in Judaism. Most of the history of the Kings of Judah is a history of just such mixing with Canaanite religion!

'Then Athtar the Awesome climbed Mount Zaphon,
Ascended the throne of Ba'al the Almighty.
But his feet did not reach the footstool,
His head did not touch the headrest.
Then, Athar the Awesome spoke,
. . . . .
'I cannot serve as king,
I cannot dwell on the heights of Zaphon!'
So, Athtar the Awesome descended,
Stepped down from the throne of Ba'al the Almighty.
He became king of the Underworld,
Lord of the River of the Dead.'
(Victor Matthews, Don Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels 166).

Needless to say Isaiah 14 is quoted in the Book of Mormon. Likewise as I noted earlier (and gave references) the battle between YHWH and Leviathan is the battle of the Baal Cycle with Yam and Baal. The connection between Canaanite religion and early Jewish religion is pretty well studied and accepted. This is a very, very well established mainstream scholarly view. Especially over the last 40 years. 

Regarding the Brass Plates we don't know what was on them. There appears to be at least reason to thinks bits of Deuteronomy were in it although we don't know how much the Brass Plates were affected by the Josiah reforms or the lost book of law (often assumed to be Deuteronomy). As I said there are strong reasons to think Lehi came from a different tradition than Josiah, perhaps due to his connection to the northern Kingdom. However we do know parts of Isaiah and some proto parts of deutero-isaiah were on it. There's some semblance of the Genesis 2 creation account although probably not in the same form. As I mentioned one of the Canaanite devil like figures is a snake much like the Genesis 2 story. So that may predate the writing of Genesis 2 in Babylon.

Quite a few scholars going back a long time have noted Canaanite parallels to Genesis 2 although some didn't get much acceptance. (The idea that the snake was Baal for instance) Marjo Korpel and Johannes de Moor have a popular theory using the Ugaritic texts that Genesis 2 is based upon El, the creator and his wife Asherah. A devil/god called Horon attempts to dethrone El (much like Athtar did Baal above) and his cast down from the mountain of the gods. In revenge he transforms the tree of life to a tree of death and envelops the world in poisonous fog. Adam is then sent down to restore life but Horon as a serpent bites him. Adam and Eve then lose their immortality. There are elements of their thesis that is controversial though due to gaps in the Ugaritic texts. 

The broader mesopotamian Gilgamesh epic also has a snake that ate the plant of life Gilgamesh sought keeping Gilgamesh from immortality. This is known to have been in circulation in Palestine due to fragments found at Megiddo dating to 1400 BCE. This is less persuasive of course due to the bigger differences. Although it also shows how common the broad outlines of these myths were in the region.

In any case, were the Book of Mormon authentic then these scholars would think that a bulls eye for the Canaanite model of pre-exilic devil. My point is just that 1. not a lot is known about pre-exilic Israel especially the northern Kingdom and 2. what is know strongly suggests strong similarities to the Canaanite pantheon.

I must admit that it seems odd you are so convinced Arminius is the source of the Book of Mormon because of only parallels yet dismiss pretty clear parallels to Canaanite myth even though they exactly fit the purported location and time of the book. Why is that?  It seems a double standard. But that's neither here nor there. I fully agree the Book of Mormon has dualistic elements but I also don't think it has the exact devil of the later period. There are important differences.

A final note. While most apocalyptic literature is from the second temple period some pre-dates the exile. Dualism is of course a characteristic of apocalyptism which is why most date it to persian influence. However Isaiah 24-27 is a pre-exilic apocalypse. Many of the Book of Mormon devil features have some parallel to this early apocalypse. (See for example Isaiah 26:14-19) While typically Isaiah's apocalypse isn't seen as dualism proper of the Zoroastrian type there are strong dualistic presentations in chapter 26. We have shade vs. light for instance as a type for the two classes of dead one of whom YHWH raises to life. (Scholars dispute whether this should be considered resurrection or not, but one can see why one might) This dualism becomes the righteous and the wicked. In this apocalypse of Isaiah we also have that cosmic dualistic battle from the Canaanite myth.

   In that day, YHWH will punish

      with his hard and great and strong sword

  Leviathan the twisting serpent

    Leviathan, the crooked serpent

    and he will slay the dragon in the sea (Is 27.1 //Ps 74:10-15)

 

So saying there isn't a Canaanite devil in the Old Testament is just factually wrong. The question is more what the nature of the devil is in the Book of Mormon that can't be explained by Canaanite religion but only later Persian influences. 

I discussed Isaiah 14 earlier in this thread. I'll let you go back and read the discussion, but what it comes down to is that Isaiah 14 is not talking about Satan. Even the source you provided to support your assertion acknowledges this. And the snake in the Canaanite story is not similar to the serpent in the Garden of Eden according to the article I linked to in the OP. Other issues you have brought up are also refuted in the same article. This conversation will probably be more fruitful for both of us if you read through the whole thread including the links.

Also, I've never claimed Arminius is the source of the Book of Mormon, nor do I think that is the case. Arminius died in 1609 and Arminianism doesn't ripen into "Book of Mormon Arminianism" until at least ten years later. What I am suggesting is that early 17th Century Europe, particularly among the Dutch Arminians, is a very good match for the Book of Mormon. The works of Hugo Grotius are the best match by far. The history of the Dutch Republic at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th Centuries bears striking resemblance to the history of the Nephites during the time of the judges.

You talk about a bulls eye where there is none, but ignore the obvious bulls eyes right in front of you. 17th Century poems like Paradise Lost contain all the elements of the Book of Mormon Satan. I mentioned five of these elements earlier. You mentioned four of these elements in an earlier post, yourself. (In fact, I hadn't thought of symbolic dualism before so I borrowed it from you; thanks for the help on that). 

While I'm thinking about it, I'll mention a few of the similarities between the Dutch Republic and the Nephites during the reign of the judges. The Dutch Republic was a confederacy of 7 separate provinces that each had its own government, but was united for purposes of self-defense. The leadership positions were not inherited but were chosen by the people. The province of Holland was the major player and the grand pensionary of Holland was the de facto leader of the whole republic. The separate republics allowed a great deal of religious freedom to the citizens which was very uncommon at that time in Europe, and each province was also able to choose its own state religion. The Dutch Republic was involved in a war of Independence against Spain that lasted 80 years before Spain finally recognized their independence in 1648. The republic was also involved in constant conflict against successive stadtholders (captain-generals) who tried to make themselves princes over the republic. Of course the people rallied against this in order to protect their freedoms, particularly their religious freedom, since a prince would have declared a state religion for the entire republic as was the custom at that time in Europe. Maurice of Nassau was actually successful at establishing himself as prince for the last 7 years of his life, ending in 1625. As was feared, he made Calvinism the state religion and punished several of the Arminian leaders. He executed the primary Arminian leader, Oldenbarnevelt, and imprisoned Grotius, for what was supposed to be a life sentence. Grotius escaped after a few years and found refuge in France. Maurice was a genius military mind that produced several innovations in warfare and was a major reason for the success of the Dutch against the Spanish. Historians consider him to be one of the premiere military minds of his time. (Did I mention that he took over as captain-general of Holland and Zeeland at the age of 17?) The last 30 years of the 80 years war corresponded to the general war in Europe known as the 30 years war. Up to that point in history it was the deadliest war ever fought.

My hypothesis is that someone who was heavily influenced by Grotius and other Dutch thinkers of the era composed the Book of Mormon sometime during the 30 years war. The heavy toll of the thirty years war combined with the 80 year Dutch war of independence must have seemed apocalyptic: thus we get an epic story about the total destruction of two different civilizations. We have a very close match between the religious, political, and cultural systems of the Dutch and the Nephites, only a few of which I've discussed in this thread. We know that Grotius and other writers of his day were speculating about the origin of people in the new world and that among those speculations were that the people of meso-America were the lost tribes and that the people came from Asia after the Tower of Babel. The area of meso-America had been explored and mapped at that time to a sufficient degree, I believe, to have produced "Mormon's Map." There are so many convergences covering such a broad range of issues that every time I look I find something new. I mentioned earlier in this thread that the Dutch national anthem, written in 1572 I think, is 15 verses of chiasmus and that writers of that time period were reviving this ancient literary form. 

Now, if there was just some way to look really closely at the original text of the Book of Mormon and try to determine what time period it corresponds to. . .

[Gray]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's not supposition. It's in the Hebrew Scriptures. Isaiah 14 is paraphrasing a Canaanite "devil" myth. These things simply weren't fully expunged. Further outside of short period of reforms under Hezekiah and Josiah Jerusalem and even the temple housed many cults and Judaism was fairly syncretic in nature. Indeed that's the whole point of Josiah's reforms was to purge such elements from Judaism. So it seems odd you question whether such things were in Judaism. Most of the history of the Kings of Judah is a history of just such mixing with Canaanite religion!

'Then Athtar the Awesome climbed Mount Zaphon,
Ascended the throne of Ba'al the Almighty.
But his feet did not reach the footstool,
His head did not touch the headrest.
Then, Athar the Awesome spoke,
. . . . .
'I cannot serve as king,
I cannot dwell on the heights of Zaphon!'
So, Athtar the Awesome descended,
Stepped down from the throne of Ba'al the Almighty.
He became king of the Underworld,
Lord of the River of the Dead.'
(Victor Matthews, Don Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels 166).

 

It ends a bit differently here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Eh3wDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT289&lpg=PT289&dq=Athtar+the+Awesome&source=bl&ots=auqpY01-Sn&sig=YShjPASRmDOZF9V7yHoHZQoIsns&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-z-7PgunXAhXSRt8KHbG7Au4Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=Athtar the Awesome&f=false

Quote

So Athtar the Great resigns.
He steps down from the throne of Mighty Ba'al
Athtar becomes the patron of farmland.
The Awesome becomes the protector of pastures.

 

I can't see the whole book for context though.

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

I discussed Isaiah 14 earlier in this thread. I'll let you go back and read the discussion, but what it comes down to is that Isaiah 14 is not talking about Satan. Even the source you provided to support your assertion acknowledges this. And the snake in the Canaanite story is not similar to the serpent in the Garden of Eden according to the article I linked to in the OP. Other issues you have brought up are also refuted in the same article. This conversation will probably be more fruitful for both of us if you read through the whole thread including the links.

Again to be clear I'm not saying it is. It's talking about the King of Assyria. I'm not saying it's talking about Satan. I'm saying it's paraphrasing a Canaanite myth about a devil-like figure. The point about Isaiah 14 is in response to your claim "that the ancient Jews incorporated specific Canaanite beliefs about a Satan-like figure." They did. That this was used in a different context doesn't change the fact of evidence of Canaanite beliefs in the Old Testament. Now if you're asking did they have a Satan, then no. But I've been consistent in saying that was expunged from our current texts by the Deuteronomist tradition. However remnants remain.

In any case it's worth noting that what's at issue isn't how Isaiah read things in Isaiah 14 but how Lehi and Nephi did. It's therefore interesting that Lehi explicitly attributes his inferences to a supposition. "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" (2 Ne 2:17) i.e. we're dealing with a tradition that starts with Lehi and not necessarily one that pre-existed him. One way to read this is that Lehi read the metaphor about the King of Assyria as about Mot/Yam or that the version of Isaiah on the plates is different from the form of Isaiah after the exile when Isaiah may have been edited to explicitly deal with the Babylonian conquest. It's also possible that Lehi is referring to a different text than Isaiah 14.

 

Quote

And the snake in the Canaanite story is not similar to the serpent in the Garden of Eden according to the article I linked to in the OP. Other issues you have brought up are also refuted in the same article. This conversation will probably be more fruitful for both of us if you read through the whole thread including the links.

Umm the quoted article makes my point. It says, 

Quote

The ancient Near Eastern combat myth motif, exemplified in the battle between Marduk and Tiamat in Enuma Elish and Baal and Yam/Mot in ancient Canaan, typically depicted the bad guy as a serpent. The characterization of Leviathan in Isaiah 27 reflects such myths nicely: 

On that day YHWH will punish
With his hard and big and strong sword
Leviathan the fleeing serpent,
Leviathan the twisted serpent,
And he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.

So the reference in Revelation 12:9 to Satan as “the ancient serpent” probably reflects mythical monsters like Leviathan rather than the clever, legged, talking creature in Eden.

The author speculates that the serpent in the garden isn't leviathan. But note his choice of words. "Probably." This is not "refuted" simply because he thinks the bad guy in Genesis 2 and Tiamat or Yam/Mot aren't the same. But more importantly the Book of Mormon doesn't call the serpent satan. Rather 2 Ne 2:18 says, "And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies..." But who fell from heaven? Yam who was cast by the gods from mount Sappan. 

So your author who supposedly "refutes" my point explicitly connects Yam/Mot to the Satan in Revelation. I'm not sure how making my point is refutation.

It's worth noting that the Canaanite monster motif is repeated in 2 Nephi 9 where the monster of death and hell (Mot) is escaped, much like Baal escapes Mot. Again the Hebrew Bible clearly shows the influence of Canaanite myth of Mot in places like Habakkuk 2:5 where death is personified and opens its throat. (Baal conquered death by entering the mouth of Mot) While Habakkuk is post-Lehi it's generally considered to be not long after the Babylonian siege. While Habakkuk, like Isaiah, is using this myth as a metaphor for something else the key point is its presence in the text.

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

You talk about a bulls eye where there is none, but ignore the obvious bulls eyes right in front of you.

I think that's my line.

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

17th Century poems like Paradise Lost contain all the elements of the Book of Mormon Satan. I mentioned five of these elements earlier. You mentioned four of these elements in an earlier post, yourself. (In fact, I hadn't thought of symbolic dualism before so I borrowed it from you; thanks for the help on that). 

As I pointed out though Mot is cast from heaven and rules death. So that's what you have to compare to. I don't dispute the similarities of Milton but my point is that these are just common myths. The only thing I've not demonstrated is the equating of the Mot like figure and the snake in the garden. But your "refutation" of that point is a speculation in that article that the serpent in the Bible is the sea serpent of Mot/Yam not the snake in the garden. Others disagree with him though. There's not consensus on identifying the snake. Some see it as pre-exilic reaction against Baal with Baal as the snake. Others adopt the position I mentioned. Others see other connections. The paucity of data means there's no consensus but all I have to do is show that it's plausible to make my case. And it is. What you need to make your case is that the snake couldn't be Yam/Mot which is impossible to make at this time. I've no doubt you can find people who disagree but that's not really the point, is it? So while you could in theory quote John Day against Korpel and de Moor (who support my view) what does that establish? Especially since Day attributes it to the Gilgamesh epic, as I noted earlier. 

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

The works of Hugo Grotius are the best match by far. The history of the Dutch Republic at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th Centuries bears striking resemblance to the history of the Nephites during the time of the judges.

Let's stay on one set of parallels before launching onto others. Since you want to move past Arminius what does Grotius say about the fall? .

My understanding is that Grotius saw the serpent as offering cheap grace (unlike what the Book of Mormon portrays), holds to original sin (unlike the Book of Mormon), and that the Calvinists were wrong in pushing a penal theory where Christ satisfies the demands of justice (which is taught by the Book of Mormon). Now one can be uncomfortable with passages like Alma 42 which go against Grotius but it's explicitly there in the text. Frankly Alma 42 is almost impossible to reconcile to Grotius. It says that men are fallen but because of their own disobedience and that God prepared a "plan of mercy to appease the demands of justice" (15)

 

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

It ends a bit differently here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Eh3wDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT289&lpg=PT289&dq=Athtar+the+Awesome&source=bl&ots=auqpY01-Sn&sig=YShjPASRmDOZF9V7yHoHZQoIsns&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-z-7PgunXAhXSRt8KHbG7Au4Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=Athtar the Awesome&f=false

I can't see the whole book for context though.

The quote has elipses to note it's skipping forward. The following page is not part of the Google Books preview.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The quote has elipses to note it's skipping forward. The following page is not part of the Google Books preview.

 

Okay, thanks. This is what I'm able to see, for anyone who doesn't want to click a link.

 

 

[clarkgoble]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Okay, thanks. This is what I'm able to see, for anyone who doesn't want to click a link.

Just to be clear I'm quoting from a secondary source. (I'm at work and don't have my full library) The book I had at hand for the translation I don't care for. (Stories from Ancient Canaan) Some translations disagree upon the last line so that may be the issue. From your link it looks like something is cut off due to Google.

I found my copy of Old Testament Parallels though. There the translation is slightly different from the above and matches your quote. The next page is about the resurrection of Baal. The difference appears to be a revision in the 2cd edition of the Old Testament Parallels.

Doing some more reading, there's a recent Brill book that takes exception to uniting the Athtar and Isaiah 14. I checked several different translations and most have Athtar becoming king of the earth, not hell. While that's interesting to Mormons (who see Satan as cast to earth, not some mythic hell) it does undermine a few of the claims I made. However again the key issue as I noted above what how Lehi read the passage not what Isaiah intended.

Edit: Doing some more searching and I think that secondary source was wrong with its reference. Here's one that matches exactly what they quoted. Ironically it was the book I hadn't used, Stories from Ancient Canaan. I'm still trying to find out why there's a variant in translation on that point, although as I mentioned that Brill book goes with the non-underworld reading.

Edited December 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again to be clear I'm not saying it is. It's talking about the King of Assyria. I'm not saying it's talking about Satan. I'm saying it's paraphrasing a Canaanite myth about a devil-like figure. The point about Isaiah 14 is in response to your claim "that the ancient Jews incorporated specific Canaanite beliefs about a Satan-like figure." They did. That this was used in a different context doesn't change the fact of evidence of Canaanite beliefs in the Old Testament. Now if you're asking did they have a Satan, then no. But I've been consistent in saying that was expunged from our current texts by the Deuteronomist tradition. However remnants remain.

In any case it's worth noting that what's at issue isn't how Isaiah read things in Isaiah 14 but how Lehi and Nephi did. It's therefore interesting that Lehi explicitly attributes his inferences to a supposition. "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" (2 Ne 2:17) i.e. we're dealing with a tradition that starts with Lehi and not necessarily one that pre-existed him. One way to read this is that Lehi read the metaphor about the King of Assyria as about Mot/Yam or that the version of Isaiah on the plates is different from the form of Isaiah after the exile when Isaiah may have been edited to explicitly deal with the Babylonian conquest. It's also possible that Lehi is referring to a different text than Isaiah 14.

 

Umm the quoted article makes my point. It says, 

The author speculates that the serpent in the garden isn't leviathan. But note his choice of words. "Probably." This is not "refuted" simply because he thinks the bad guy in Genesis 2 and Tiamat or Yam/Mot aren't the same. But more importantly the Book of Mormon doesn't call the serpent satan. Rather 2 Ne 2:18 says, "And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies..." But who fell from heaven? Yam who was cast by the gods from mount Sappan. 

So your author who supposedly "refutes" my point explicitly connects Yam/Mot to the Satan in Revelation. I'm not sure how making my point is refutation.

It's worth noting that the Canaanite monster motif is repeated in 2 Nephi 9 where the monster of death and hell (Mot) is escaped, much like Baal escapes Mot. Again the Hebrew Bible clearly shows the influence of Canaanite myth of Mot in places like Habakkuk 2:5 where death is personified and opens its throat. (Baal conquered death by entering the mouth of Mot) While Habakkuk is post-Lehi it's generally considered to be not long after the Babylonian siege. While Habakkuk, like Isaiah, is using this myth as a metaphor for something else the key point is its presence in the text.

I think that's my line.

As I pointed out though Mot is cast from heaven and rules death. So that's what you have to compare to. I don't dispute the simeilarities of Milton but my point is that these are just common myths. The only thing I've not demonstrated is the equating of the Mot like figure and the snake in the garden. But your "refutation" of that point is a speculation in that article that the serpent in the Bible is the sea serpent of Mot/Yam not the snake in the garden. Others disagree with him though. There's not consensus on identifying the snake. Some see it as pre-exilic reaction against Baal with Baal as the snake. Others adopt the position I mentioned. Others see other connections. The paucity of data means there's no consensus but all I have to do is show that it's plausible to make my case. And it is. What you need to make your case is that the snake couldn't be Yam/Mot which is impossible to make at this time. I've no doubt you can find people who disagree but that's not really the pthe serpent in the Garden of Edenoint, is it? So while you could in theory quote John Day against Korpel and de Moor (who support my view) what does that establish? Especially since Day attributes it to the Gilgamesh epic, as I noted earlier. 

Let's stay on one set of parallels before launching onto others. Since you want to move past Arminius what does Grotius say about the fall? .

My understanding is that Grotius saw the serpent as offering cheap grace (unlike what the Book of Mormon portrays), holds to original sin (unlike the Book of Mormon), and that the Calvinists were wrong in pushing a penal theory where Christ satisfies the demands of justice (which is taught by the Book of Mormon). Now one can be uncomfortable with passages like Alma 42 which go against Grotius but it's explicitly there in the text. Frankly Alma 42 is almost impossible to reconcile to Grotius. It says that men are fallen but because of their own disobedience and that God prepared a "plan of mercy to appease the demands of justice" (15)

Much of your argument is in support of a position that I conceded from the outset, which is that Canaanite myths had an influence on the Israelite religion. So there’s no need to continue to beat that drum. The two issues I have with your position are that 1) you haven’t identified any Canaanite myths that look anything like the Book of Mormon Satan in the first place, and 2) it is completely a matter of supposition to say that certain ideas must have been incorporated into Judaism but then lost. (The only way to demonstrate ideas were incorporated is if they haven’t been lost.)

In the OP I presented three specific aspects of the Book of Mormon Satan that appear in the writings I am hypothesizing contributed to the composition of the Book of Mormon. These are Satan as: 1) an angel fallen from heaven, 2) the ruler of hell, and 3) the serpent in the Garden of Eden. In order to determine the relative strength of your proposition, it seems prudent to analyze the strength of your purported correlations to these three characteristics.

If I understand correctly, you are positing Athtar as fulfilling requirements number (1) and (2) above. Based on the information you provided and from what I can gather on wikipedia Athtar, as a candidate, fails on number 1. He appears to be a minor god who was offered the throne of his slain brother, Ba’al, by their father, El. Apparently he was too young or too weak to assume such a mighty throne so he chose to leave it. He doesn’t appear to have been a rebellious figure and he didn’t fall, he descended willingly. For item number 2 I'm willing to acknowledge a partial similarity for Athar as a leader of the underworld, but the alternate translation showing that he became the patron of farmland weakens this. And although I understand the Christian understanding of hell is influenced by the ancient conception of the underworld, they are still separate concepts, so leader of the underworld isn't that impressive anyway. For number 3 I am not clear which Canaanite mythological figure(s) you are suggesting correlates to the serpent. At any rate, according to the criteria I set up we need a serpent who exists in the Garden of Eden. A general serpent is just a snake, and a sea serpent isn’t a serpent at all. (At least not one that could exist on land, which is a requirement of the story.) I don’t see any correlation on this point at all, but perhaps you can provide some clarity. In summary, all I can see that you’ve provided from Canaanite mythology is a leader of the underworld and some vague correlations with a serpent. But rulers of the underworld and serpents are ubiquitous in mythology anyway, so I don’t see how this advances your proposition.

[JarMan]

On 12/1/2017 at 10:32 AM, clarkgoble said:

My understanding is that Grotius saw the serpent as offering cheap grace (unlike what the Book of Mormon portrays), holds to original sin (unlike the Book of Mormon), and that the Calvinists were wrong in pushing a penal theory where Christ satisfies the demands of justice (which is taught by the Book of Mormon). Now one can be uncomfortable with passages like Alma 42 which go against Grotius but it's explicitly there in the text. Frankly Alma 42 is almost impossible to reconcile to Grotius. It says that men are fallen but because of their own disobedience and that God prepared a "plan of mercy to appease the demands of justice" (15)

This is inaccurate on several levels and I cannot let it go unanswered. The most clear and concise source for Arminian Doctrine (that I know of) in the time period I am talking about is the Arminian Confession of 1621. 

Here are some relevant paragraphs. 

3. Through this transgression the man was made liable to eternal death and multiple miseries from the power of the divine threat and was stripped of that primeval happiness which he received in creation. Thus he was ejected from that most delightful garden (a type of the heavenly paradise) in which he otherwise happily conversed with God, and was perpetually barred from the tree of life, which was a symbol of blessed immortality.

4. Because Adam was the stock and root of the whole human race, he therefore involved and implicated not only himself, but also all his posterity (as if they were contained in his loins and went forth from him by natural generation) in the same death and misery with himself, so that all men without any discrimination, only our Lord Jesus Christ excepted, are by this one sin of Adam deprived of that primeval happiness, and destitute of true righteousness necessary for achieving eternal life, and consequently are now born subject to that eternal death of which we spoke, and manifold miseries.

This tells us there are essentially four results of the fall: 1) physical death, 2) eternal death, 3) misery, and 4) sin, or the fallen nature of man. There is no inherent guilt imputed by the fall. Guilt comes from our own sins. 

This is identical to the doctrine as taught in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon uses the term “spiritual death” meaning separation from God, and the Confession uses “eternal death” which, per the context, appears to be the same thing. 

The Confession has many remarkable similarities to the Book of Mormon chapters we have been discussing (2 Nephi 2 and Alma 42) and it would be a lengthy dissertation to make a complete comparison, which I don’t currently have time to do. But here are few obvious parallels, which deserve to be considered further: the idea of an opposition in all things, the mercy/justice dichotomy regarding the law and Christ’s divine nature, the emphasis on moral agency, the overarching theme of Christ’s atonement in relation to all of these things, and, to bring us full circle, the description of Satan as a fallen angel, the serpent of Eden, and the ruler of hell. 

Edited December 3, 2017 by JarMan

[clarkgoble]

On 12/1/2017 at 11:35 PM, JarMan said:

Based on the information you provided and from what I can gather on wikipedia Athtar, as a candidate, fails on number 1. He appears to be a minor god who was offered the throne of his slain brother, Ba’al, by their father, El. Apparently he was too young or too weak to assume such a mighty throne so he chose to leave it. He doesn’t appear to have been a rebellious figure and he didn’t fall, he descended willingly.

Different scholars interpret that differently. The Brill book I linked to favors the reading you outlined above. Looking through the literature this is a relatively recent change of view. Most the commentaries I have still refer to the Canaanite connection. There still are defenders as well such as Cragie who notes that Helel = "shining" corresponds with Athtar's modifying "Athtar the Luminious." He argues that despite the differences (Athtar ascending the throne due to Baal being in hell after his conflict with Mat) that Isaiah was adopting the view thereby putting the modified legend in pre-exilic Israel. Although that 's still relatively old (1973). However more recent scholars such as Michael Heiser (2001) argue the key part of Isaiah 14 is the arrogance of taking the throne and dismissing El's commands for his role. Thus the key, and why Isaiah uses it, is the desire for control and power. Although Heiser rejects the translation of "ars" as underworld. (I noted the translation change which apparently reflects the recent changing scholarly view). But for purposes of argument I'll concede the Canaanite parallels aren't as strong as the Biblical commentaries I'd read suggested.

The question from an apologist perspective, since the easy answer is gone, becomes how pre-exilic peoples would have read it. As I mentioned earlier it is notable that the text has Lehi making a conjecture in 2 Nephi 2:17 that Isaiah 14 refers to a fall. That still resolves the problem since it become original with him thereby affecting the trajectory of Nephite belief. (Just as by the time of the Enochian tradition a few hundred years later in the 2cd temple period it was seen in a similar light) While a few scholars date Isaiah 14 to post exilic there are still quite a few who see an 8th century reference to Hezekiah's Babylonian ally or to an 8th century Assyrian tyrant. In which case we have mythic language being applied to an actual fall, which could easily lead Lehi to read the text cosmologically in terms of that historic event.

So even in this I don't see a problem.

On 12/1/2017 at 11:35 PM, JarMan said:

For item number 2 I'm willing to acknowledge a partial similarity for Athar as a leader of the underworld, but the alternate translation showing that he became the patron of farmland weakens this. And although I understand the Christian understanding of hell is influenced by the ancient conception of the underworld, they are still separate concepts, so leader of the underworld isn't that impressive anyway.

Remember that my main parallel for (2) wasn't Athtar but Mot and Yam. Athtar becoming Lord of the underworld and merging with the Mot legends now seems less likely, but the Mot and Yam views don't appear to have changed in the scholarly community. Mot being an underworld conflict with Baal fits the Book of Mormon strongly. Likewise the battle with Yam as the sea monster fits exactly and has numerous quotations in generally accepted pre-exilic texts. So the main problems are the equating of Yam with the garden serpent and the association of the figure from Isaiah 14 with the Mot/Yam like figures. But given we have clear textual indication that Lehi is making suppositions I don't see that as a huge problem. And again, the supposition seems natural given that it is uncontroversial that post-exilic Jews made that connection.

I'd note that Lehi doesn't say Satan was cast down from heaven but fell from heaven, possibly being more compatible with Athtar finding himself unsuitable to replace Baal.

On 12/1/2017 at 11:35 PM, JarMan said:

For number 3 I am not clear which Canaanite mythological figure(s) you are suggesting correlates to the serpent. At any rate, according to the criteria I set up we need a serpent who exists in the Garden of Eden. A general serpent is just a snake, and a sea serpent isn’t a serpent at all. (At least not one that could exist on land, which is a requirement of the story.) I don’t see any correlation on this point at all, but perhaps you can provide some clarity.

I think I indicated earlier that there Genesis 2-3 parallel is the hardest to make. There are lots of scholarly views on the subject but no real consensus. 

Ugh. The forum's editor is acting up again. I'd written a ton here and it all was deleted. I need to start writing in a word processor so I don't lose my text. I've lost several long posts the past few days. So quickly two points rather than rewriting it all. 

John Day does a good overview of the number of scholars making parallels for the serpent in the relevant period. I think I referenced him earlier. From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1-11 starting on page 36. His own view is a Gilgamesh parallel and he notes there are pre-exilic texts of this in the Palestinian are starting around the 14th century. So even if one doesn't buy it as the source (and Day's view hasn't become the consensus) it works at minimum for intertextuality and semantic drift.

The second point is simply to note again the issue isn't whether Lehi's views were ubiquitous at the time but rather whether Lehi's reading (again labeled as a supposition by Nephi) are plausible for the period. In other words to label 2 Nephi 2 as achronistic one can't merely establish that mainstream views were from the later Hellenistic period of the second temple era with the rise of Enochian literature. Rather one has to explain why it would be irrational for Lehi to have thought this. That so many scholars are still pushing parallels to earlier traditions ought affect how we make that judgment especially if, as most assume, Lehi is portrayed as a traveling metal merchant. We'd expect him to first have contact with these other myths including Egyptian, Canaanite, Assyrian and possibly even Babylonian traditions. So the charge of it being anachronistic, while possibly true for general Jewish belief, is harder to make for Lehi. (Although I'm very skeptical of it as even being a defensible thesis for pre-Josiah Judaism given the paucity of the texts from which to argue)

Edited December 4, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

On 11/29/2017 at 4:03 PM, carbon dioxide said:

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. 

He's in the Enochian literature. So with the rise of what we now call the pseudopigrapha, particularly texts like 2 Enoch, he's established. The general thought, albeit speculative, is that this comes from Persian influence after Persia conquers Babylon and sets the Jews free. There are some reasons to be skeptic of too close an influence of Zoroastrianism though. However certainly by the 2cd century BCE it's all in place with various variants. (i.e. what are the ties between Satan as fallen and the fallen angels of the Watchers in 1 Enoch)

On 11/29/2017 at 3:31 PM, Nevo said:

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.

Not to restate the obvious but it's clearly got modern elements even in the faithful view. From a non-faithful view where God's not involved then by definition it's a modern composition minus the odd theories that put Joseph as copying it from a prior text (whether the discredits Spaulding Manuscript, View of the Hebrews, or some postulated but not extant text from a century or two earlier).

For the faithful view there will still of necessity be modern elements. I think the evidence for a loose translation that heavily makes use of the KJV text, Shakespeare, and theological phrases available to Joseph are overwhelming. I think a near majority consensus is also that there are expansions in the text to the underlying Nephite record. The question thus becomes from a faithful perspective what is or isn't an artifact of translation. 

[Web Of Slime]

Quote

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).

The serpent goes back to Ancient Egypt and has been seen as opposition to "light" for a long time. This depiction is certainly not anachronistic and, if anything, is syncretic going back a long time.

Satan works against God, in Chronicles, "moving" David to number the men in the armies. So, at least in 600 BC, Satan is acting in direct opposition to God.

The Slavonic Enoch, and apocryphal text, describes Satan-Sataniel having fallen from heaven and remaining above the abyss. Revelations seems to intimate some of these same ideas and concepts and there is some common thread to Isaiah, but the use of "Lucifer" seems to be debated and many claim it is obvious that "Lucifer" is the ruler of Babylon.

The War Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls conveys a tale about the war in heaven, but we are still a few hundred years after the Old Testament was written and "Belial" is the offending rebel, as opposed to Satan-Sataniel. Still, the story is important in the context of asking whether or not the War in Heaven is anachronistic.

But, if we go back further, to the cult of the Elephantine Triad, we see that Khnum's son is the god of magic, "the cannibal pharoah" who must eat others to take on their power. As the new dynasties took over, the Trinity of Aswan morphed into other things, but the red obelisks they created (ASwan was the only place to get red granite in the Ancient World IIRC) were coveted and one even sits in the middle of St Peter's square, today, after sitting in the Circus of Nero for 1,000 years.

But, Cronus also overthrew his father, so this is hardly a new way to spin out tales of divine origins. The push and pull of chaos and order is as old as human imagination.

As far as "Israelites" believing in Hell and in a rebellion, " Isaiah 66:24 says "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." I find this passage interesting because it does introduce the concept of a sort of eternal damnation as the result of rebelling against God.

Whatever concept evolved, Hades and the Underworld is still a precursor to all of this. Like the Trinity of Aswan, many of these stories are rebooted versions of older stories that are designed to have more mass appeal during the times they were produced. When a religion loses relevance, the old stories are spun out in new, more relevant ways.

So, is the "Satan" of the Book of Mormon anachronistic? Personally, I don't think so. As in many things Joseph Smith, I believe he tried to reconcile a great deal of doctrinal flaws found in Catholicism while trying to remove a lot of the more blatant "reboots" of mythological stories that the Catholic church retold using saints. In a way, with the elimination of symbols, sacred geometry and "secret" combinations, Joseph Smith almost created an "anti-cult."

If you've never seen Paul the 6th's Audience Hall from the outside and inside, you can see the obvious serpent head and the constant retooling of dark symbology. They are still playing a game across the world using a variety of symbols and "secret combinations."