Web Of Slime Posted December 4, 2017 Posted December 4, 2017 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."
Web Of Slime Posted December 4, 2017 Posted December 4, 2017 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."
Web Of Slime Posted December 4, 2017 Posted December 4, 2017 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."
JarMan Posted December 5, 2017 Author Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, clarkgoble said: 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. In supporting your position that the Book of Mormon is not anachronistic, you are citing the Book of Mormon. You are essentially arguing that the Book of Mormon is not anachronistic because the Book of Mormon tells us it is not anachronistic. I think it is obvious how pre-exilic people would have read Isaiah 14. They would have been aware of the morning star as a symbol of a fallen hero. (Remember that the morning star starts out brightly just before dawn, rises throughout the morning, but ultimately disappears (or falls) when the light of the sun completely obscures it.) Isaiah 14 is clearly referring to a Babylonian king when this symbol is used to describe that king. It is only by re-purposing the text ex post facto in a Christian context that we now see any hint of Satan. 6 hours ago, clarkgoble said: 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. You are relying here on the same circular reasoning I pointed out, above. Regardless, though, the presence of one supposition doesn't mean that a further supposition must also be valid. Thanks for the clarification regarding Athtar/Mot. I am now seeing where you see Mot as a Satan figure in that he battled with Baal and was head of the underworld. Still, the gods battling each other is ubiquitous in mythology as is the presence of a guardian of the underworld. But there are some obvious problems with this in relation to the Book of Mormon. First of all, Mot didn't "fall" to the underworld as far as I can tell. It was just his domain to begin with. (If I've got this wrong, please correct me.) Also, he was the guardian of the underworld, not captive to it. And, then we have the problem I briefly mentioned earlier, which is that the idea of the underworld doesn't equal the hell of the Book of Mormon. It is simply the place of the dead, like Hades. As far as I can tell there was no Tartarus or hell in Canaanite mythology. In other words, hell seems to be anachronistic to the Book of Mormon, as well. You also mention Yam who has some Satan-like characteristics in that he also battled with Baal and was god of the ocean, being sometimes referred to as a serpent. But a serpent-like god of the ocean is quite common in mythology. And as mentioned earlier, a sea serpent is a completely different thing than a land serpent. The potential parallels you see don't seem to be any more striking to the parallels we might find given a mythology from a random culture. One of the obvious problems in dealing with pre-exilic Israel is that there is so little information. What we don't know is orders of magnitude greater than what we do know. This is convenient, though, for developing an apologetic argument since the apologist only needs to come up with a theory that has some small amount of plausibility. This is not hard to do (given the vastness of what is not known) since there is a practical limit to the potential amount of contradictory information that may be encountered. But the part of me that accepts the Book of Mormon on faith doesn't need an apologetic argument. And the part of me that wants a valid argument from reason is not convinced by an ad hoc explanation. Edited December 5, 2017 by JarMan 2
clarkgoble Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) (Sorry for the weird stuff - I lost most of the post but managed to save a bit) Quote 7 hours ago, Web Of Slime said: 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. I confess I just don't know Egypt as well, although given Lehi's explicit connections with Egypt and Egyptian writing that makes sense. (Not to mention the temple at Elephanti which was syncretic in various ways) My understanding though (and correct me if I'm wrong) but isn't Egyptian snake imagery usually positive not negative? I know there was Apep who was opposed to Ma'at. He was in art a giant serpent and the lord of chaos. The priests would burn an effigy of him that was in some ways similar to the scapegoat practice in Israel. The main reason I didn't bring him up is that I didn't find too many scholars who tied Genesis 3 with Apep. Apep is interesting since he captures some of the waters of chaos imagery from Canaanite and Ugaritic texts (the tiamat sea monster that's quoted in the Old Testament) yet is a land snake. So you may be right that Lehi reading Isaiah 14 (and it sounds like he'd not read it before) is reading in light of Egyptian religion. I wish we had better explicit connection though. The main proponent of an Egyptian connection is James Hoffmeier in the 80's. Fortunately his "Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2 and Egyptian Cosmology" is available online. It's well worth reading for those interested in this discussion. Quote 7 hours ago, Web Of Slime said: 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. By the time of the Hellenistic period everything is in place. But none of that tells us much about pre-exilic belief. Quote 7 hours ago, Web Of Slime said: 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. Trito-Isaiah is post-exilic and isn't quoted by the Book of Mormon. Of course Deutero-Isaiah is often quoted but the main argument to explain that away is that some proto-form of the prophecies were on the brass plates that were further edited and redacted in the exile. Edited December 5, 2017 by clarkgoble
clarkgoble Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 4 hours ago, JarMan said: In supporting your position that the Book of Mormon is not anachronistic, you are citing the Book of Mormon. You are essentially arguing that the Book of Mormon is not anachronistic because the Book of Mormon tells us it is not anachronistic. That's not my argument at all. My point is that Lehi claims this is an original reading. To say it is anachronistic is to say he could have any originary readings. He's not portraying this as a general reading of Israelite religion. The fact he states "I suppose" is very significant for the exegesis. I thought I put forth the secondary argument fairly clearly. 4 hours ago, JarMan said: I think it is obvious how pre-exilic people would have read Isaiah 14. They would have been aware of the morning star as a symbol of a fallen hero. (Remember that the morning star starts out brightly just before dawn, rises throughout the morning, but ultimately disappears (or falls) when the light of the sun completely obscures it.) Isaiah 14 is clearly referring to a Babylonian king when this symbol is used to describe that king. It is only by re-purposing the text ex post facto in a Christian context that we now see any hint of Satan. But your claim is about how the typical pre-exilic Jew would have read it. That's not my argument. The question is whether a pre-exilic Jew could have read it in terms of these other myths from Egypt, Canaan, or Babylon. i.e. is it a plausibly possible reading 4 hours ago, JarMan said: Still, the gods battling each other is ubiquitous in mythology as is the presence of a guardian of the underworld. But there are some obvious problems with this in relation to the Book of Mormon. First of all, Mot didn't "fall" to the underworld as far as I can tell. It was just his domain to begin with. (If I've got this wrong, please correct me.) Also, he was the guardian of the underworld, not captive to it. And, then we have the problem I briefly mentioned earlier, which is that the idea of the underworld doesn't equal the hell of the Book of Mormon. It is simply the place of the dead, like Hades. As far as I can tell there was no Tartarus or hell in Canaanite mythology. In other words, hell seems to be anachronistic to the Book of Mormon, as well. Again I'm not saying Mot is an exact copy. Rather it represents one aspect of the Satan figure. As you note it was ubiquitous in the region appearing in Canaan, Greece, Rome, and Babylon. Hell is a different topic and I'm willing to address that tomorrow. But I think you're wrong about how the Book of Mormon portrays hell. 4 hours ago, JarMan said: You also mention Yam who has some Satan-like characteristics in that he also battled with Baal and was god of the ocean, being sometimes referred to as a serpent. But a serpent-like god of the ocean is quite common in mythology. And as mentioned earlier, a sea serpent is a completely different thing than a land serpent. The potential parallels you see don't seem to be any more striking to the parallels we might find given a mythology from a random culture. Again the ubiquity is an argument for why Lehi would be exposed to it. So that's a feature not a bug. And again, it's oft quoted in the Old Testament. (And I just checked and that hasn't changed in recent scholarship. When I bring up Yam I'm not bringing him up to be the serpent of Genesis 3. Again I think I was pretty clear on that point. Although again the Egyptian parallels, while not as widely accepted by Bible scholars are rather interesting. I'll confess I don't know those as well. But read that link above to Hoffmeier. 4 hours ago, JarMan said: One of the obvious problems in dealing with pre-exilic Israel is that there is so little information. What we don't know is orders of magnitude greater than what we do know. That does make making anachronistic claims harder to prove since so much is an argument from silence when nearly everything already is silence. 1
JarMan Posted December 5, 2017 Author Posted December 5, 2017 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: That's not my argument at all. My point is that Lehi claims this is an original reading. To say it is anachronistic is to say he could have any originary readings. He's not portraying this as a general reading of Israelite religion. The fact he states "I suppose" is very significant for the exegesis. I thought I put forth the secondary argument fairly clearly. I don’t think the words “I suppose” strengthen your point because they acknowledges that what follows is a novel interpretation. (A novel interpretation, by definition, is less likely to have been held by Lehi.) The words simply indicate that whoever wrote them (whether ancient or modern) understood that what followed was an unconventional understanding in the context of pre-exilic Israel. My hypothetical 17th Century writer surely would have understood this. 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Again I'm not saying Mot is an exact copy. Rather it represents one aspect of the Satan figure. As you note it was ubiquitous in the region appearing in Canaan, Greece, Rome, and Babylon. Hell is a different topic and I'm willing to address that tomorrow. But I think you're wrong about how the Book of Mormon portrays hell. Again the ubiquity is an argument for why Lehi would be exposed to it. So that's a feature not a bug. And again, it's oft quoted in the Old Testament. (And I just checked and that hasn't changed in recent scholarship. When I bring up Yam I'm not bringing him up to be the serpent of Genesis 3. Again I think I was pretty clear on that point. Although again the Egyptian parallels, while not as widely accepted by Bible scholars are rather interesting. I'll confess I don't know those as well. But read that link above to Hoffmeier. When I mention the ubiquity of certain aspects of mythology I am not just referring to the ANE and the Greco-Roman world, but to worldwide mythology. Satan-like figures appear in cultures we would both agree could not possibly have influenced the Book of Mormon. If these cultures do not encounter Christianity, their Satan-like figures do not take on the characteristics of the Christian Satan. On the other hand we sometimes get figures like Supay, who is the ruler of the Incan underworld and a race of demons. Because of Catholic influence during the Spanish colonization of South America Supay began to acquire characteristics of the Catholic Satan. Likewise, the current concept of Satan in the Christian world can be traced through several cultures over thousands of years. Lacking that history it’s just not reasonable to think Lehi would have somehow supposed a concept of Satan that was over 2,000 years ahead of its time. 2 hours ago, clarkgoble said: That does make making anachronistic claims harder to prove since so much is an argument from silence when nearly everything already is silence. My interest isn’t really in proving anything per se. I’m simply showing that the traditional model of the Book of Mormon is just not reasonable. (Though I have no problem with accepting the traditional model on faith, which is my personal default position.) I also do not think a 19th Century model for the Book of Mormon is reasonable. But the fact remains we have this wonderful life-changing, world-changing book that is just begging for an explanation. It got here somehow. It just may not be the way we’ve always thought.
clarkgoble Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, JarMan said: I don’t think the words “I suppose” strengthen your point because they acknowledges that what follows is a novel interpretation. (A novel interpretation, by definition, is less likely to have been held by Lehi.) The words simply indicate that whoever wrote them (whether ancient or modern) understood that what followed was an unconventional understanding in the context of pre-exilic Israel. My hypothetical 17th Century writer surely would have understood this. Not following you here. My point is Lehi's reading plausibly is novel and thus the widespread belief at the time is irrelevant. You're arguing that because Lehi says it's a novel reading that therefore it's less likely to be novel? I'm assuming there's a typo here of some sort. I'm not sure a typical 17th or 19th century author would necessarily know there was a problem since Biblical scholarship was still in its infancy at the time of Joseph Smith. (I'd have to check the Clarke Biblical Commentary to be sure - there's evidence that by the time of the post Genesis 17 JST work Joseph was consulting that commentary) Indeed it seems to me the whole point of pointing out problems with pre-exilic Israel (Satan, deutero-Isaiah, etc.) is that Joseph likely wouldn't have known those as most were a product of late 19th century scholarship or even in some cases 20th century scholarship. 10 hours ago, JarMan said: When I mention the ubiquity of certain aspects of mythology I am not just referring to the ANE and the Greco-Roman world, but to worldwide mythology. Satan-like figures appear in cultures we would both agree could not possibly have influenced the Book of Mormon. If these cultures do not encounter Christianity, their Satan-like figures do not take on the characteristics of the Christian Satan. But that seems to favor my position more. After all the traditional conception of shared universal structures in myths is that these are features highly incentivized as interpretations of the world around one. That might be due to common psychological structures such as you find in early 20th century myth-criticism or psychoanalysis. (Even Joseph Campbell's structuralism really is part of that) Or it might simply be features of the environment that incentivize such interpretations. Say how the death/regrowth pattern in the seasons incentivizes dying/resurrection myths. The problem is that if these myth features are common, then that provides are clear incentive for individuals to interpret scripture in terms of such common features. i.e. Lehi making these interpretation would be highly probably thereby making anachronism charges more problematic. Intertextuality (where two texts are interpreted in terms of each other thereby changing the original interpretations) would then explain developments. Indeed what becomes interesting about Judaism isn't that Satan developed by the Hellenistic period but why it wasn't there before. 10 hours ago, JarMan said: My interest isn’t really in proving anything per se. I’m simply showing that the traditional model of the Book of Mormon is just not reasonable. (Though I have no problem with accepting the traditional model on faith, which is my personal default position.) I also do not think a 19th Century model for the Book of Mormon is reasonable. But the fact remains we have this wonderful life-changing, world-changing book that is just begging for an explanation. It got here somehow. It just may not be the way we’ve always thought. I understood that. Probably proof isn't the ideal word to use since we're discussing hermeneutics rather than formal logic or mathematics. I think it is pretty reasonable for a variety of reasons which isn't to deny some things like metal we don't have good answers for. So I'm more than willing to acknowledge problems in the Book of Mormon. I just don't find satan a good example of such a problem. Swords, metal and so forth are much more problematic. I'll admit that the identity of the serpent as a devil or even not seen as a serpent at all (such as in contemporary Mormonism) is more problematic than the other aspects of satan. But only by a matter of degree. Edited December 5, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
JarMan Posted December 5, 2017 Author Posted December 5, 2017 3 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Not following you here. My point is Lehi's reading plausibly is novel and thus the widespread belief at the time is irrelevant. You're arguing that because Lehi says it's a novel reading that therefore it's less likely to be novel? I'm assuming there's a typo here of some sort. We seem to be talking past each other on this issue. You asserted it was significant that Lehi was making a supposition by connecting some text (either Isaiah 14 or another unknown text) to Satan. I agree he seems to be saying that his reading of the text is novel and he is starting a new tradition of understanding it. But I am failing to understand why this is significant in the context of whether or not it is anachronistic. 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I'm not sure a typical 17th or 19th century author would necessarily know there was a problem since Biblical scholarship was still in its infancy at the time of Joseph Smith. (I'd have to check the Clarke Biblical Commentary to be sure - there's evidence that by the time of the post Genesis 17 JST work Joseph was consulting that commentary) Indeed it seems to me the whole point of pointing out problems with pre-exilic Israel (Satan, deutero-Isaiah, etc.) is that Joseph likely wouldn't have known those as most were a product of late 19th century scholarship or even in some cases 20th century scholarship. A 17th Century scholar would understand that Satan doesn't exist in the Old Testament. He wouldn't, however, understand something like deutero-Isaiah. 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: But that seems to favor my position more. After all the traditional conception of shared universal structures in myths is that these are features highly incentivized as interpretations of the world around one. That might be due to common psychological structures such as you find in early 20th century myth-criticism or psychoanalysis. (Even Joseph Campbell's structuralism really is part of that) Or it might simply be features of the environment that incentivize such interpretations. Say how the death/regrowth pattern in the seasons incentivizes dying/resurrection myths. The problem is that if these myth features are common, then that provides are clear incentive for individuals to interpret scripture in terms of such common features. i.e. Lehi making these interpretation would be highly probably thereby making anachronism charges more problematic. Here's the pertinent issue: you have identified correlation, but have done nothing to show causation. Various correlations exist to the Book of Mormon Satan in many traditions. If you could show that your correlations were significantly stronger than the other correlations you would have some statistical evidence supporting causation. I'm no expert in mythology. . . but I think I could make a comparable correlation to characters in Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. Here are some pages showing hundreds of mythological or literary figures that could be correlated to Satan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_death_deities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Underworld_gods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legendary_serpents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_in_mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_tricksters https://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/the-greatest-villains-of-literature/99665 I perused several of these and right off the bat saw numerous correlations that were of comparable strength to the ones you are asserting. This means that the correlations you have identified likely exist for some reason other than causation. On the other hand, I am quite confident I could show correlations with 17th Century poems that would far exceed everything on the lists I linked to. This is very strong evidence for causation. One way to diminish my evidence would be to show an even stronger correlation in a different, previous tradition. I'm quite confident that can't be done (but if someone could prove me wrong I'd be very interested).
clarkgoble Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 1 hour ago, JarMan said: We seem to be talking past each other on this issue. You asserted it was significant that Lehi was making a supposition by connecting some text (either Isaiah 14 or another unknown text) to Satan. I agree he seems to be saying that his reading of the text is novel and he is starting a new tradition of understanding it. But I am failing to understand why this is significant in the context of whether or not it is anachronistic. Maybe we should take a step back and have you explain what you understand anachronistic means. Perhaps we're disagreeing on that point. 1 hour ago, JarMan said: A 17th Century scholar would understand that Satan doesn't exist in the Old Testament. He wouldn't, however, understand something like deutero-Isaiah. I'm not sure that's true. Why do you think that was the mainstream view in the 1600's? 1 hour ago, JarMan said: Here's the pertinent issue: you have identified correlation, but have done nothing to show causation. Why do I have to? All I have to do is establish plausibility.
JarMan Posted December 6, 2017 Author Posted December 6, 2017 35 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Maybe we should take a step back and have you explain what you understand anachronistic means. Perhaps we're disagreeing on that point. If a concept is known for certain to have been developed at a particular point in time, it would be anachronistic to see that particular concept appear in a work purporting to date prior to the time it was known to have developed. 40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I'm not sure that's true. Why do you think that was the mainstream view in the 1600's? It doesn't have to be a mainstream view, it just has to be a reasonable view. I think the OT speaks (or, in this case, doesn't speak) for itself on the existence of Satan. 42 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Why do I have to? All I have to do is establish plausibility. It depends what you're trying to accomplish. If you're simply trying to give a struggling believer a glimmer of something to hold onto, then maybe plausibility is all you need. Personally, I'm interested in a higher standard of proof. I'm not looking for proof as in, holy crap they just discovered a 17th Century Book of Mormon manuscript stashed in the basement of some library/museum/castle in the Netherlands. I'm just looking for reasonableness. Part of how I determine what is reasonable is by comparing the relative reasonableness of different theories, not only to each other, but to a baseline. In this discussion I think a good theoretical baseline would be the totality of mythical and literary characters. In practice, we are limited to the characters that are available to us to research, but because of the internet, I actually think we have a pretty simple way to grab a decent sample. If a theory fails to gain separation from the baseline, then it becomes suspect. If, however, it shows significant separation, it may be worth further pursuit.
Bobbieaware Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 (edited) Deleted Edited December 6, 2017 by Bobbieaware
clarkgoble Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, JarMan said: If a concept is known for certain to have been developed at a particular point in time, it would be anachronistic to see that particular concept appear in a work purporting to date prior to the time it was known to have developed. But more what I am getting at is whether you see it as universal or about the broad culture without specifying what everyone in that culture believes. It appears like you see it as universal and not merely about what ideas gained widespread acceptance. Just trying to clarify as I think this is a key issue since to me it's not universal. So for instance in the history of philosophy you might have one figure who originates an idea that becomes popular. You then find many people anticipated the idea even though their version never catches on. 4 hours ago, JarMan said: It doesn't have to be a mainstream view, it just has to be a reasonable view. I think the OT speaks (or, in this case, doesn't speak) for itself on the existence of Satan. I'm not following how that'd suffice. If it's not the mainstream view then the majority of Bible scholars in that era don't believe it. Right? Or maybe I'm confused exactly what you're arguing for. What you say here seems to contradict what you said earlier when you said, "a 17th Century scholar would understand that Satan doesn't exist in the Old Testament." 4 hours ago, JarMan said: If you're simply trying to give a struggling believer a glimmer of something to hold onto, then maybe plausibility is all you need. Personally, I'm interested in a higher standard of proof. But then doesn't the question become who has the burden of proof? I think my point is we don't know. If I'm following you, you're saying we should only believe the argument to best explanation regardless of whether there's strong evidence for that position. (Since I think both of us agree the mainstream position is largely an argument from silence from an era with a paucity of evidence) It's not clear to me why saying it's plausible that Lehi could have believed differently is insufficient but that I must provide a "higher standard of proof." I get that you prefer that. It's just not clear to me why. Edited December 6, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
Bobbieaware Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 4 hours ago, JarMan said: If a concept is known for certain to have been developed at a particular point in time, it would be anachronistic to see that particular concept appear in a work purporting to date prior to the time it was known to have developed. It doesn't have to be a mainstream view, it just has to be a reasonable view. I think the OT speaks (or, in this case, doesn't speak) for itself on the existence of Satan. It depends what you're trying to accomplish. If you're simply trying to give a struggling believer a glimmer of something to hold onto, then maybe plausibility is all you need. Personally, I'm interested in a higher standard of proof. I'm not looking for proof as in, holy crap they just discovered a 17th Century Book of Mormon manuscript stashed in the basement of some library/museum/castle in the Netherlands. I'm just looking for reasonableness. Part of how I determine what is reasonable is by comparing the relative reasonableness of different theories, not only to each other, but to a baseline. In this discussion I think a good theoretical baseline would be the totality of mythical and literary characters. In practice, we are limited to the characters that are available to us to research, but because of the internet, I actually think we have a pretty simple way to grab a decent sample. If a theory fails to gain separation from the baseline, then it becomes suspect. If, however, it shows significant separation, it may be worth further pursuit. Earlier on this thread I tried to demonstrate to you that, according to the words of Moses restored through the instrumentality of the prophet Joseph Smith (the Book of Moses), the people of Old Testament times did indeed know about the existence of the evil spiritual intelligence called the devil, but the encounter of Moses with the devil and the other encounters with the devil experienced by Adam, Enoch and others recorded in the Book of Moses were, by Moses’ own testimony, expunged from the Old Testament by evil, designing men. But taking the prophet Joseph Smith at his prophetic word to settle your mind on this subject was too easy and not convincing enough for you. Well what follows will likely be another element in this discussion that you probably haven’t considered. Have you ever considered the fact that throughout Nephi’s great vision the person and role of Satan is clearly and repeatedly disclosed by the means of a most powerful and graphic divine revelation (the same revelatory vision received by the brother of Jared and the Apostle John)? So even if the brass plates didn’t contain more complete picture of Satan, the Nephites would have gained deep insights into the person of Satan and his doings because they were revealed by God to a founding member of the Nephite Church of Christ. In fact, Satan and his works are discussed about 20 times in Nephi’s vision alone, with many more references in 2 Nephi. So there you go — the Nephites didn’t need a more complete version of the Old Testament because Satan was clearly revealed to them by a Nephite Founding Father who received a special vision that contained a panoramic view of the spiritual history of the world from the beginning to the ending thereof. There’s your answer according to the Book of Mormon’s own testimony. If you don’t believe it and you are not a believing Latter-Day Saint,, you may as well get off your hamster wheel to nowhere. Bottom line? The Book of Mormon makes a perfectly reasonable case as to why the Nephites would have known about Satan, even without a more complete and unexpunged version of the Old Testament. If you don’t believe Nephi experienced the great vision recorded in 1 Nephi, you’re putting members of the LDS Church at an extremely unfair and unreasonable disadvantage in trying to explain to you why the Book of Mormon shares the New Testament’s clarity on the person and role of Satan. Cabeche?
clarkgoble Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 14 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Earlier on this thread I tried to demonstrate to you that, according to the words of Moses restored through the instrumentality of the prophet Joseph Smith (the Book of Moses), the people of Old Testament times did indeed know about the existence of the evil spiritual intelligence called the devil, but the encounter of Moses with the devil and the other encounters with the devil experienced by Adam, Enoch and others recorded in the Book of Moses were, by Moses’ own testimony, expunged from the Old Testament by evil, designing men. But taking the prophet Joseph Smith at his prophetic word to settle your mind on this subject was too easy and not convincing enough for you. Well what follows will likely be another element in this discussion that you probably haven’t considered. Well that's rather the point. The argument is whether these are a problem thereby undermining the idea it was prophesy rather than fiction written by Joseph or someone else. If you just start off assuming it's prophecy then of course you're right. But that is more or less sneaking in the conclusion as a premise. 1
JarMan Posted December 6, 2017 Author Posted December 6, 2017 12 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Earlier on this thread I tried to demonstrate to you that, according to the words of Moses restored through the instrumentality of the prophet Joseph Smith (the Book of Moses), the people of Old Testament times did indeed know about the existence of the evil spiritual intelligence called the devil, but the encounter of Moses with the devil and the other encounters with the devil experienced by Adam, Enoch and others recorded in the Book of Moses were, by Moses’ own testimony, expunged from the Old Testament by evil, designing men. But taking the prophet Joseph Smith at his prophetic word to settle your mind on this subject was too easy and not convincing enough for you. Well what follows will likely be another element in this discussion that you probably haven’t considered. Have you ever considered the fact that throughout Nephi’s great vision the person and role of Satan is clearly and repeatedly disclosed by the means of a most powerful and graphic divine revelation (the same revelatory vision received by the brother of Jared and the Apostle John)? So even if the brass plates didn’t contain more complete picture of Satan, the Nephites would have gained deep insights into the person of Satan and his doings because they were revealed by God to a founding member of the Nephite Church of Christ. In fact, Satan and his works are discussed about 20 times in Nephi’s vision alone, with many more references in 2 Nephi. So there you go — the Nephites didn’t need a more complete version of the Old Testament because Satan was clearly revealed to them by a Nephite Founding Father who received a special vision that contained a panoramic view of the spiritual history of the world from the beginning to the ending thereof. There’s your answer according to the Book of Mormon’s own testimony. If you don’t believe it and you are not a believing Latter-Day Saint,, you may as well get off your hamster wheel to nowhere. Bottom line? The Book of Mormon makes a perfectly reasonable case as to why the Nephites would have known about Satan, even without a more complete and unexpunged version of the Old Testament. If you don’t believe Nephi experienced the great vision recorded in 1 Nephi, you’re putting members of the LDS Church at an extremely unfair and unreasonable disadvantage in trying to explain to you why the Book of Mormon shares the New Testament’s clarity on the person and role of Satan. Cabeche? Just to clarify one point, the Book of Mormon does not have the same conception of Satan as the New Testament. It has a conception of Satan that didn't come into existence until the 17th Century (as far as I can tell). So you have to ask why it wasn't taught by Christ or any of the New Testament writers. To get to your main point, though, from a perspective of faith, your argument is valid. But I think we've been given two separate ways to discover truth. One is the Holy Ghost and the other is our minds. I've already received a witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon through the Holy Ghost. But that's not the end of the story for me. I think we are supposed to use reason to discover truth, as well. Take the issue of creation/evolution, for instance. On faith I believe we were created by God in his image. But reason tells me that we came about from evolution. So I try to reconcile the apparent contradictions the best I can. This is a process that involves both reason and faith. (Essentially faith fills in the gaps where I can't, through reason, find reconciliation.) My approach to the Book of Mormon is similar. I think there is a lot of knowledge to be gained by using reason to try to explain the existence of the Book of Mormon. I have gained a lot of insight by reading it from a 17th Century perspective. For example, it brings the importance of religious tolerance to the forefront of the discussion. In doing this, I am not trying to falsify the faithful perspective. I'm simply trying to add to it. I realize that this process inevitably results in contradictions, but I am comfortable with that. I will try to find reconciliation the best that I can and then use faith to fill in the gaps.
JarMan Posted December 6, 2017 Author Posted December 6, 2017 12 hours ago, clarkgoble said: But more what I am getting at is whether you see it as universal or about the broad culture without specifying what everyone in that culture believes. It appears like you see it as universal and not merely about what ideas gained widespread acceptance. Just trying to clarify as I think this is a key issue since to me it's not universal. So for instance in the history of philosophy you might have one figure who originates an idea that becomes popular. You then find many people anticipated the idea even though their version never catches on. I'm not following how that'd suffice. If it's not the mainstream view then the majority of Bible scholars in that era don't believe it. Right? Or maybe I'm confused exactly what you're arguing for. What you say here seems to contradict what you said earlier when you said, "a 17th Century scholar would understand that Satan doesn't exist in the Old Testament." But then doesn't the question become who has the burden of proof? I think my point is we don't know. If I'm following you, you're saying we should only believe the argument to best explanation regardless of whether there's strong evidence for that position. (Since I think both of us agree the mainstream position is largely an argument from silence from an era with a paucity of evidence) It's not clear to me why saying it's plausible that Lehi could have believed differently is insufficient but that I must provide a "higher standard of proof." I get that you prefer that. It's just not clear to me why. I think you are misunderstanding what I am really trying to get at with this discussion. This is probably because I haven't been clear enough. I am not trying to falsify the traditional explanation of the Book of Mormon per se. If I were, you would simply have to show plausibility and then declare victory. This is the typical apologetic approach to critics and it works well because the low standard of showing plausibility can usually be met fairly easily. I am arguing from a faithful perspective that there is a better explanation for how the Book of Mormon came to be. My argument is comparative in nature. I have a competing hypothesis that I think follows from empirical data in a way that no other theory does. So, for the purposes of this discussion only, I will concede that your explanation is plausible. What I am really looking for is a comparative counter-argument. How does your explanation fit the known data better than my hypothesis? 1
clarkgoble Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, JarMan said: I think you are misunderstanding what I am really trying to get at with this discussion. This is probably because I haven't been clear enough. I am not trying to falsify the traditional explanation of the Book of Mormon per se. If I were, you would simply have to show plausibility and then declare victory. This is the typical apologetic approach to critics and it works well because the low standard of showing plausibility can usually be met fairly easily. I am arguing from a faithful perspective that there is a better explanation for how the Book of Mormon came to be. My argument is comparative in nature. I have a competing hypothesis that I think follows from empirical data in a way that no other theory does. So, for the purposes of this discussion only, I will concede that your explanation is plausible. What I am really looking for is a comparative counter-argument. How does your explanation fit the known data better than my hypothesis? But I don't see how this is a faithful perspective, I confess. That is quite helpful and you're right that I was misunderstanding your argument. However it seems like your model has an implication it's fiction if I'm following you correctly. Quote Just to clarify one point, the Book of Mormon does not have the same conception of Satan as the New Testament. It has a conception of Satan that didn't come into existence until the 17th Century (as far as I can tell). So you have to ask why it wasn't taught by Christ or any of the New Testament writers. Could you clarify here? I assume you're referring to the Middleton - Waterland debate in the early 17th century. But I'm more curious as to why you dismiss the rabbinical and pseudopigraphal literature. I was all with you on the problem of pre-hellenic use. However once you get to the Greek/Roman period things change quite a bit. The Apocalypse of Moses, the Wisdom of Solomon and so forth. In particular the Wisdom of Solomon is typically taken as the first equating of the snake in Genesis 3 to the devil. Edited December 6, 2017 by clarkgoble
JarMan Posted December 6, 2017 Author Posted December 6, 2017 2 hours ago, clarkgoble said: But I don't see how this is a faithful perspective, I confess. That is quite helpful and you're right that I was misunderstanding your argument. However it seems like your model has an implication it's fiction if I'm following you correctly. I mentioned earlier that this hypothesis is somewhere on the spectrum between "super-expansionist" and "inspired fiction." I'll explain what I mean. Let's suppose a 17th Century prophet begins to really ponder the people in the new world in relation to God (as well as the fate of his own wicked people) and it is made known to him by God that there were people who lived there who, once having God's word, perished as a chosen people because of their wickedness. This prophet sets about writing the story of these people. Some of the basic characteristics and history of the people are revealed to him, but the prophet understands he has been called to write a story whose purpose is to lead people to a testimony of Christ and to set out personal, social, governmental and international guidelines intended to prevent the very thing that caused these formerly great nations to be wiped out. He draws heavily on the events in his own world, his knowledge of the scriptures, his existing theology, the information that has been revealed to him about the people, and guidance from God to create the story. From here there are still some things that need to be addressed, such as the existence of the Gold plates and the other artifacts, plus the angel. I have some speculative stories about how the plates and other things came to be buried in a hill in Upstate New York and regarding the true identity of Joseph's angel, but I'm not ready to share those ideas yet. 2 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Could you clarify here? I assume you're referring to the Middleton - Waterland debate in the early 17th century. But I'm more curious as to why you dismiss the rabbinical and pseudopigraphal literature. I was all with you on the problem of pre-hellenic use. However once you get to the Greek/Roman period things change quite a bit. The Apocalypse of Moses, the Wisdom of Solomon and so forth. In particular the Wisdom of Solomon is typically taken as the first equating of the snake in Genesis 3 to the devil. No, my argument is not based on something that complex. It's based on the idea that the concept of Satan in the Book of Mormon is nearly identical to Milton's Satan in Paradise Lost (as well as other 17th Century poems). As far as I can tell, this concept of Satan didn't appear until the 17th Century. However, if someone can show me where this concept of Satan appears earlier, I will readily admit I'm wrong and then I will need to revise my theory on this particular subject. When I talk about the "Book of Mormon concept of Satan" I include all the issues we have talked about in this thread, namely: 1) Satan is a fallen angel , 2) Satan is the snake in the Garden of Eden, 3) Satan is the ruler of hell, 4) Satan became miserable and seeks the misery of others, 5) Satan is the dualistic counterpart of Christ in the epic struggle of good vs evil. I think these ideas individually can be traced back prior to the 17th Century, but I don't know that they have ever been combined into a unified description of Satan like what we see in the Book of Mormon and Paradise Lost. 1
clarkgoble Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, JarMan said: I mentioned earlier that this hypothesis is somewhere on the spectrum between "super-expansionist" and "inspired fiction." Yeah, I don't think most believers would be accepting of that for the same reason I'm not sympathetic to Taves attempt at a middle ground either. 32 minutes ago, JarMan said: It's based on the idea that the concept of Satan in the Book of Mormon is nearly identical to Milton's Satan in Paradise Lost (as well as other 17th Century poems). As far as I can tell, this concept of Satan didn't appear until the 17th Century. However, if someone can show me where this concept of Satan appears earlier, I will readily admit I'm wrong and then I will need to revise my theory on this particular subject. When I talk about the "Book of Mormon concept of Satan" I include all the issues we have talked about in this thread, namely: 1) Satan is a fallen angel , 2) Satan is the snake in the Garden of Eden, 3) Satan is the ruler of hell, 4) Satan became miserable and seeks the misery of others, 5) Satan is the dualistic counterpart of Christ in the epic struggle of good vs evil. I think these ideas individually can be traced back prior to the 17th Century, but I don't know that they have ever been combined into a unified description of Satan like what we see in the Book of Mormon and Paradise Lost. I confess I just don't but the Milton's Satan thesis. For one most of those ideas don't originate with Milton. I know it's common to say that Milton was the first to combine them into a single character. Perhaps that's true as a character in a narrative but in terms of theology it's definitely not true. Further the problem with the Book of Mormon is that the devil only exists as an abstract theological notion. He's never a character. Consider Augustine in City of God. The devil's a fallen angel. He uses the serpent's tongue to tempt Eve. He seeks the misery of humans. Satan is the dualistic counterpart to God. All human's are Satan's in a way similar to the Book of Mormon. He believes in a physical hell and a City of the Devil that is the dualistic counterpart to the City of God. So there are differences between Augustine (or later medieval figures like Aquinas) and Milton, yet the elements you outline seem all there. So what elements do you see that are in both the Book of Mormon and Milton that aren't in Augustine? (We'll stick with Augustine rather than earlier figures simply because City of God is so easy to discuss) It's also worth noting that there are differences from Milton in the Book of Mormon. Milton thought there was a sexual relationship prior to the fall. The Book of Mormon thinks sexuality requires the fall and indeed sees the fall as a good because of that. Milton has sexual activity before the fall to highlight how in the garden it's about love and after the fall is about lust. The Book of Mormon has none of that. Now I've not read Milton since High School, but as I recall for Milton the fall is intrinsically bad. Whereas 2 Nephi 2 has it as a necessary opposition in order to create moral freedom. The devil in 2 Nephi 2 is a bit of a dupe, quite unlike Milton. (And unlike Augustine) While 2 Nephi 2 doesn't have the full development of Eve as hero that later develops in Mormonism, it does have the idea that the fall was a good thing and not a bad thing. It just attributes this more to Adam than to Eve. In Milton Adam eats because he can't bear to be without Eve. In Lehi that's not present. Rather "Adam fell that man might be." Further the only way to have joy wasn't (as in Milton and Augustine) to stay in the garden but to fall. (2:22-23) So I think one has to account for these big differences too. Edited December 6, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
Bobbieaware Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 (edited) On 12/6/2017 at 12:32 AM, clarkgoble said: Well that's rather the point. The argument is whether these are a problem thereby undermining the idea it was prophesy rather than fiction written by Joseph or someone else. If you just start off assuming it's prophecy then of course you're right. But that is more or less sneaking in the conclusion as a premise. JarMan’s question is this: Why does the “Old Testament” portion of the Book of Mormon (all the chapters written prior to 3 Nephi 11) speak so much about Satan when the Old Testament of the Bible scarcely mentions him? Both the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon provide excellent answers to this supposedly difficult and perplexing question. The Book of Mormon answers the question by plainly demonstrating that even before the Lehites left the Holy Land the prophet Nephi had a great revelatory vision in which the reality of Satan and his evil designs were clearly and repeatedly laid out before him. This means even if the brass plates of Laban had little to say about Satan (something I doubt), the Nephites would have still known plenty about the devil thanks to Nephi’s all-important, highly informative vision. Help me to understand something: Why should the text of the Book of Mormon be considered off limits when it comes to answering questions about the Book of Mormon? Why shouldn’t the Book of Mormon be allowed to speak for itself in its own defense? JarMan wants to know why the Book of Mormon prophets knew so much about Satan? Well the prophet Nephi gives us an easy to understand and perfectly rational explanation as to why the Book of Mormon prophets would have been so well-informed on the subject. But citing this perfectly good and effective explanation, one that comes from the very pages of the Book of Mormon itself, is for some strange reason considered by JarMan and you to be unscholarly and naive. Again, why shouldn’t the the Book of Mormon writers be allowed to defend themselves? In the New Testament, the Savior explains, at some length, why he had to suffer, endure crucifixion and die for the world. Would you also consider it unscholarly and naive for someone to answer the question why Christ had to suffer and die if he were to appeal to Christ’s own explanation, as set forth in the New Testament? Mormonism is all about getting answers to important gospel questions by obtaining revelatory knowledge directly from God. If on this discussion board Mormons aren’t allowed to answer questions by appealing to their own scriptures, then it seems to me that in order to play by the rules of the scholar’s game the Latter-Day Saints are required to abandon one of the most importent and indispensable tenets of their own religion. Is it reasonable and wise for Latter-Day Saints to abandon one of the most important principles of their religion (divine revelation) in favor of adopting a non-revelatory method of investigation that Paul himself says often condemns those thusly engaged to be engrossed in a state of mind where they are “forever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth?” All throughout the Book of Mormon, the prophets often answer important gospel questions by citing the scriptures. But am I to take it that on this discussion board of “scholarly wisemen” that the oft-used method of truth discovery used by the holy prophets themselves (divine revelation) is considered to be inadequate and off limits? If so, then there should be a separate forum where it’s made clear that the participants aren’t allowed to quote from the scriptures when trying to establish their points. But I would venture to guess the reason why JarMan criticizes my obviously effective scripture-based approach to answering his question as being “circular” and useless is because he doesn’t actually want his question answered in a way that vindicates the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon because he would much rather feel justified in continuing to have his doubts. Bottom line? The Book of Mormon makes it perfectly clear that one of the reasons why the Nephites knew so much about Satan is that one of their greatest Founding Fathers had a great revelation from God that plainly revealed the existence of Satan and his diabolical designs. There’s the answer to JarMans question and to say it isn’t valid or good enough is ridiculous, especially when one considers that the question is focused on the content of the Book of Mormon itself. How would you suggest that the question could be satisfactorily answered without appealing to the Book of Mormon? Edited December 7, 2017 by Bobbieaware
clarkgoble Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 15 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: JarMan’s question is this: Why does the “Old Testament” portion of the Book of Mormon (all the chapters written prior to 3 Nephi 11) speak so much about Satan when the Old Testament of the Bible scarcely mentions him? Both the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon provide excellent answers to this supposedly difficult and perplexing question. That's not really his issue. It's not that there is a Satan character but that characteristics of Satan are ones that only developed much later. (He says Milton, but I don't think that's correct) Some of his points were good. The Isaiah 14 interpretation for instance, although as I noted Lehi presents his interpretation as novel. The more Yam/Mot parallels mean some elements aren't as significant. I noted those. (Satan as head of hell, Satan as seeking mischief/misery, Satan as representing chaos in a dualistic fashion) The biggest problem is the connection between the serpent in Genesis 3 and Satan (to the point that I think most contemporary Mormons think the snake is purely metaphoric and it was Satan as human there). While the vision of Lehi/Nephi can account for some of this it's also likely that the vision is itself conditioned by the expectations regarding myths and symbols that Lehi and Nephi held. So explaining that is important. I've long noted the strong parallels to the Enochian literature for instance even though that literature is generally seen as arising later in the second temple period. Even though ultimately I don't see any of these things as problems, explaining them can be helpful and can also sometimes throw light on the Book of Mormon. For instance the last decade or so has seen many noting Canaanite influences or parallels on the Book of Mormon. Further they note the place of Josiah and the Deuteronomist tradition in expunging Canaanite elements from Jewish religion.
Bobbieaware Posted December 8, 2017 Posted December 8, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, clarkgoble said: That's not really his issue. It's not that there is a Satan character but that characteristics of Satan are ones that only developed much later. (He says Milton, but I don't think that's correct) Some of his points were good. The Isaiah 14 interpretation for instance, although as I noted Lehi presents his interpretation as novel. The more Yam/Mot parallels mean some elements aren't as significant. I noted those. (Satan as head of hell, Satan as seeking mischief/misery, Satan as representing chaos in a dualistic fashion) The biggest problem is the connection between the serpent in Genesis 3 and Satan (to the point that I think most contemporary Mormons think the snake is purely metaphoric and it was Satan as human there). While the vision of Lehi/Nephi can account for some of this it's also likely that the vision is itself conditioned by the expectations regarding myths and symbols that Lehi and Nephi held. So explaining that is important. I've long noted the strong parallels to the Enochian literature for instance even though that literature is generally seen as arising later in the second temple period. Even though ultimately I don't see any of these things as problems, explaining them can be helpful and can also sometimes throw light on the Book of Mormon. For instance the last decade or so has seen many noting Canaanite influences or parallels on the Book of Mormon. Further they note the place of Josiah and the Deuteronomist tradition in expunging Canaanite elements from Jewish religion. There was no “development.” The Book of Moses makes it clear that Moses and the Patriarchs knew as much about Satan as the writers of the New Testament did. JarMan’s problem is that he starts out with a scholarly sounding but presumptuous and incorrect premise. As long as the New Testament’s understanding of the person and role of Satan is the true and real one, there isn’t any need to suppose that an omniscient and omnipotent God couldn’t, through special revelation, reveal that very same knowledge of things as they really are to Nephi and the other Book of Mormon prophets who lived long before the earthly advent of Christ. If, as the New Testament writers testify, there really is a Satan who leads fallen spirits to battle against God, then it would be quite easy for the Almighty God to inform ancient American prophets of this important component of reality in a creation predicated upon the immutable concept of there being polar opposition in all things. .And that’s exactly what the Book of Moses says — God did reveal to his earliest prophets the person and nature of a very real evil being named Satan. JarMan’s question could be easily flipped on its head, as one could also ask how could such a thorough knowledge of the person and role of the atoning Son of God be present in the “Old Testament” portion of the Book of Mormon when the person and role of the Messiah isn’t nearly as plainly and clearly developed in the Old Testament, at least as it has come down to us today? How did the Old Testament era Book of Mormon prophets know as much about the person and nature of the Savior as the apostle Paul did? This critically important knowledge was revealed to them by the means of ministering angels, visions and revelations. Are we to presume the Book of Mormon is false because the ancient American Old Testament era prophets seemed to have a much clearer and complete understanding of the Savior than did the Old Testament writers? Not allowing the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses to powerfully testify of their own accuracy and divine authenticity is a serious error to anyone who wants to know about the operation of God and the destiny of the world. They have every right to discount or ignore these testimonies, but by doing so they will be left to grope in the dark. Edited December 8, 2017 by Bobbieaware
clarkgoble Posted December 8, 2017 Posted December 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: There was no “development.” The Book of Moses makes it clear that Moses and the Patriarchs knew as much about Satan as the writers of the New Testament did. I confess I don't buy the idea that there's not development. Even in the Book of Mormon it seems to me that Nephi makes clear many practices like the particular form of mikvah they practice are novel. Also the issue is as much the language used to describe a figure as it is doctrine. However I'm open to particular imagery being revealed earlier but I'd like to see the evidence. I'm not sure a vague appeal to the Book of Moses is helpful for a variety of reasons not the least of which it seems to me much of the JST is an expansion and not necessarily things told Moses.
JarMan Posted December 8, 2017 Author Posted December 8, 2017 I have just a few minutes so I won't be able to address all of the things I want to until later. I think we need to examine our fundamental assumptions about "development" of theology. On one end of the spectrum is the idea that truth and "true" theological ideas don't change over time. Based on this assumption, there is no theological development but simply a repeating process of falling away from truth and then that truth being re-established through god's chosen prophets. This is the view I used to hold. On the other end of the spectrum you have the idea that truth is relative to different people at different times and, therefore, truth and "true" theology changes based on the situation. I don't hold this view and I never have, but I know that some people do. Somewhere along this spectrum is the idea that truth, at some abstract level, is unchanging but that theological ideas evolve over time in relation to changing cultures. A prophet's role is to present theological ideas appropriate to the day that help people understand universal truth. This is closer to my view. Thus you have the OT, with it's own theology, but which was likely reformed and reinterpreted along the way. Then along comes certain of these people from this OT culture such as Jesus of Nazareth and the apostles and they teach a radically different theology. The result, sometime later when their teachings are compiled, is the NT with a different theology than what is found in the OT. Early and medieval Christians then look back on the OT and reinterpret it based on their understanding of the NT and the religious infusions from other cultures. Later we receive the Book of Mormon, which takes takes traditional OT and NT concepts expounded upon by the ECF, and merges these teachings with post-reformation ideas and principles derived from Renaissance humanism. Once we have these three sources of scripture the development doesn't stop there. Joseph Smith has several revelations recorded in the D&C and PGP and found in temple ceremonies which further expand and change the theology found in the previous three sources. After Joseph's death we then see further refinement, additions, and changes to the theological concepts of Mormonism as modern prophets are inspired to do so. This is essentially my view of the "development" of Mormon theology. The key to the way I see things is found in the differentiation between truth, which I think is universal and static, and theology, which I see as dynamic religious ideas that help lead us to universal truth.
Recommended Posts