Is the Book of Mormon Satan anachronistic?

[JarMan]

8 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I pointed all of this out to JarMan on earlier posts on this thread but he was not Impressed. Apparently, in spite of Nephite revelation, he will continue to believe the Book of Mormon narrative on Satan is anachronistic until it can be be amply demonstrated that the Old Testament prophets of the Holy Land knew as much about the Satan as did the Nephites. It seems explanations based on revelation hold zero weight in the realm of scholarship. I even rehearsed that the Book of Moses, as originally written, reveals Moses and Enoch knew as much about Satan as the Nephites did, but that tact also didn’t make a dent. It appears that the gospel principle of divine revelation and scholarship are mutually exclusive.

Your argument would only make sense if you could show that the Book of Moses predated Lehi. Otherwise you are assuming almost the very thing (the Book of Moses is ancient) you are trying to prove (the Book of Mormon is ancient). You may as well skip the first step and just proclaim the Book of Mormon to be ancient because you believe it to be ancient.

But logical incoherence aside, your argument still fails because the Book of Moses does not present the same Satan as the Book of Mormon. In fact, the Book of Moses is more clearly seen as part of the process of development that I have been describing. After the Book of Mormon we get D&C 29 which adds some details. Then there are new details that emerge from Moses that aren't contained in the Book of Mormon or the D&C. Later we get the Book of Abraham that offers additional details not seen in any of the previous three sources. Finally, we get the temple ceremonies that add even more details. If all of these prophets had the same conception, if they were all receiving revelation from the same source, why do they all present something different? And isn’t it clear that the ideas got more sophisticated throughout Joseph’s life?

Edited December 18, 2017 by JarMan

[Anonymous Mormon]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

You are making the same mistake that was made earlier in the thread, which is that you are citing a source to support the validity of that very same source. In essence, you are saying the Book of Mormon is not anachronistic because the Book of Mormon says it is not anachronistic. You may as well say that the Book of Mormon must be true because it says it is true.

Usually when people talk about anachronisms in the BoM the underlying assumption is that because the anachronism is there, the book must not be true. So an anachronism that is explained as to why it exists in the text, isn't worth discussing in this sense, because it is accepted as truth. For example, if I truly went back in time to the dinosaurs with a gun, both me (a human) and the gun would be anachronisms. But if I really truly did so, then it would still be true and fact. So whether or not something is anachronistic isn't an indication of whether or not it's true.

 

Now, as I see it, there are really 3 different conversations going on in this thread:

1) Is Satan an anachronism? According to the definition we now share, in that Lehi couldn't have known about him,  the answer is most likely (I can't say 100% because it is possible that ancient Jews had an understanding of Satan that I am not aware of). The idea of Satan is introduced by an Angel in the vision of the tree of life. Here are a other Anachronisms from this vision:
-Jesus Christ (not born yet)
-Mary (not born yet)
-John the Baptist (not born yet)
-12 Apostles (not born yet)
-12 Apostles in Americas (not born yet)
-Nephi and his family in promised land in Americas (hadn't happened yet)
-The Bible in the Americas (hadn't been published yet - no Guttenberg press)
-John the Revelator (not born yet)
-Etc. (I bet there are at least two dozen  anachronisms in the vision of the tree of life, but we all get the point)

 

2) In your original post, you asked the question of

Quote

 

"The question is how to resolve this apparent discrepancy. Why does the Book of Mormon present a view of Satan among the Nephites that seems anachronistic to ancient Israel."

 

This is the question I was responding to in my last post. There is no discrepancy. Yes, Satan is an anachronism in that from what we know he wasn't part of the ancient Hebrew tradition. But because the BoM shows this is revealed truth by an angel, there is no discrepancy in the BoM and it doesn't help prove the BoM is true or false.

3) The third conversation is about the evolution of the concept of Satan both in Christianity in general, as well as within LDS philosophy. Although interesting, it is beyond my depth so I'll let you and Clark keep discussing this one.

 

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

You are not properly accounting for the role of development in religious ideas. The Book of Mormon is just a snapshot in time of religious ideas. The church quickly moved beyond several of the ideas in the Book of Mormon such that they are now outdated, meaning that we have since received revelation that contradicts or significantly adds to the doctrine. Relevant to this discussion is the idea that Satan was our brother in the pre-mortal life (rather than an angel created in the heavens prior to Adam's fall) and that he is ruler in hell over just the Sons of Perdition (rather than everyone who is not saved through Christ's grace). So if God made such a point to bring the Nephites up to speed in the truth of the Christian view, why did he give them a 17th Century system of religious beliefs instead of, say, a 21st Century system?

All of this belongs to discussion point #3 and really isn't relevant to whether or not Satan is an anachronism or whether or not the idea of Satan is a discrepancy in the BoM.  

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

I think you are not acting in good faith towards my argument. My underlying assumption is that any "system" of religious beliefs has a history of development from cultural and other, related religious traditions. Religious systems don't suddenly come into existence from a vacuum. The Arminian system was a product of its time as all systems are, which means that they borrowed from others and probably developed unique concepts (reactively) based on the specific challenges of their time. They brought all of these ideas together into a coherent system--and that is what is unique--not necessarily any individual idea. That this same convergence of ideas--this religious system--is also found in the Book of Mormon strongly implies that the Book of Mormon system is also a product of the same or, at least a similar, history of development. At the same time, there is no substantial evidence that shows a similar system under development in pre-exilic Israel.

But again, to make this argument you have to show what's uniquely Arminian that can only be explained by Arminianism. So I don't think I'm arguing in bad faith. I think you've found parallels just that the parallels can be found much earlier as well. So the question is why pick Arminianism? Why not Eastern Christianity from 1200 AD?

Normally the next argument is that Joseph Smith was potentially exposed to American Arminianism. However you're explicitly not making that argument - to the point of actually suggesting the Book of Mormon is an earlier production when Arminianism was in its initial development. But if we can go back a century or two, why not centuries earlier? That's the point I'm making.

Edited December 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

But again, to make this argument you have to show what's uniquely Arminian that can only be explained by Arminianism. So I don't think I'm arguing in bad faith. I think you've found parallels just that the parallels can be found much earlier as well. So the question is why pick Arminianism? Why not Eastern Christianity from 1200 AD?

Normally the next argument is that Joseph Smith was potentially exposed to American Arminianism. However you're explicitly not making that argument - to the point of actually suggesting the Book of Mormon is an earlier production when Arminianism was in its initial development. But if we can go back a century or two, why not centuries earlier? That's the point I'm making.

I don't think you are acknowledging the distinction between a system of ideas that exist within a narrow temporal and spatial window versus those same ideas being scattered widely across time and space. I've chosen a very narrow window to defend: Arminianism (primarily Dutch, but spreading to England and other parts of Europe) between about 1620 and 1660. I am hypothesizing that I can fit essentially all Book of Mormon ideas into that small window. This includes ideas about doctrine, government, culture, Book of Mormon geography, and the origin of native Americans. If you try to go any earlier than about 1620 you don't see the full development or convergence of all of the ideas yet. It's harder to put an ending date on this window (so I am much less confident in 1660 then I am of 1620) but what you see as time progresses is a divergence of ideas geographically, a re-formulation of ideas, and cultural changes that are no longer a good match for the Book of Mormon. Eastern Christianity of 1200 AD is really not even in the ballpark in comparison.

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Usually when people talk about anachronisms in the BoM the underlying assumption is that because the anachronism is there, the book must not be true. So an anachronism that is explained as to why it exists in the text, isn't worth discussing in this sense, because it is accepted as truth. For example, if I truly went back in time to the dinosaurs with a gun, both me (a human) and the gun would be anachronisms. But if I really truly did so, then it would still be true and fact. So whether or not something is anachronistic isn't an indication of whether or not it's true.

 

Now, as I see it, there are really 3 different conversations going on in this thread:

1) Is Satan an anachronism? According to the definition we now share, in that Lehi couldn't have known about him,  the answer is most likely (I can't say 100% because it is possible that ancient Jews had an understanding of Satan that I am not aware of). The idea of Satan is introduced by an Angel in the vision of the tree of life. Here are a other Anachronisms from this vision:
-Jesus Christ (not born yet)
-Mary (not born yet)
-John the Baptist (not born yet)
-12 Apostles (not born yet)
-12 Apostles in Americas (not born yet)
-Nephi and his family in promised land in Americas (hadn't happened yet)
-The Bible in the Americas (hadn't been published yet - no Guttenberg press)
-John the Revelator (not born yet)
-Etc. (I bet there are at least two dozen  anachronisms in the vision of the tree of life, but we all get the point)

 

2) In your original post, you asked the question of

This is the question I was responding to in my last post. There is no discrepancy. Yes, Satan is an anachronism in that from what we know he wasn't part of the ancient Hebrew tradition. But because the BoM shows this is revealed truth by an angel, there is no discrepancy in the BoM and it doesn't help prove the BoM is true or false.

3) The third conversation is about the evolution of the concept of Satan both in Christianity in general, as well as within LDS philosophy. Although interesting, it is beyond my depth so I'll let you and Clark keep discussing this one.

 

All of this belongs to discussion point #3 and really isn't relevant to whether or not Satan is an anachronism or whether or not the idea of Satan is a discrepancy in the BoM.  

To ignore point #3 is to completely miss my argument. This is because one of my basic assumptions is that religious ideas come about by a process of development. They don't simply come into existence without any discernible trace of influence (with or without the assistance of an angel). I think the development of the understanding of Satan (in Christianity and in Mormonism) is no exception to this rule. So basing your argument on a static, unchanging view of Satan is self-defeating since it can readily be shown that even the Mormon view of Satan drastically changed over Joseph Smith's lifetime.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I don't think you are acknowledging the distinction between a system of ideas that exist within a narrow temporal and spatial window versus those same ideas being scattered widely across time and space. I've chosen a very narrow window to defend: Arminianism (primarily Dutch, but spreading to England and other parts of Europe) between about 1620 and 1660. I am hypothesizing that I can fit essentially all Book of Mormon ideas into that small window. 

But again, why that window? That's the point I'm getting at. Why that window rather than eastern Christianity circa 1200? So I think you're missing the critique I'm making. You're saying the convergence of ideas wasn't there, but I confess I don't see that unless you can point to what's unique in your time frame. But that's what you've not done.

Edited December 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But again, why that window? That's the point I'm getting at. Why that window rather than eastern Christianity circa 1200? So I think you're missing the critique I'm making. You're saying the convergence of ideas wasn't there, but I confess I don't see that unless you can point to what's unique in your time frame. But that's what you've not done.

What is unique is the convergence. Eastern Christianity circa 1200 doesn't have the right theory of government, for one. Or the same ideas of religious freedom. Nor the right atonement theory. It doesn't contain the guidelines on the law of war as found in the Book of Mormon. It doesn't have certain cultural practices like the burning of heretics. Nor dozens of other basic things found in the Book of Mormon like the existence of a peopled western hemisphere. And to the theme of this thread, I doubt that you will find a theory of Satan like the one in the Book of Mormon. In my proposed narrow temporal/spatial window you will find all of these things.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

What is unique is the convergence. Eastern Christianity circa 1200 doesn't have the right theory of government, for one. Or the same ideas of religious freedom. Nor the right atonement theory. It doesn't contain the guidelines on the law of war as found in the Book of Mormon. It doesn't have certain cultural practices like the burning of heretics. Nor dozens of other basic things found in the Book of Mormon like the existence of a peopled western hemisphere. And to the theme of this thread, I doubt that you will find a theory of Satan like the one in the Book of Mormon. In my proposed narrow temporal/spatial window you will find all of these things.

Could you go through some of those? Thus far we've just discussed Satan and Atonement. Not sure what you mean with the rest. You're wrong btw about burning heretics. That was common in eastern Christianity - particularly of the Manicheans. Not sure on war what you are saying the Arminians believed that's in the Book of Mormon. As for Satan, I believe it is the same although I'd have to double check to make sure the dating is all on par. Of course the eastern doctrine of theosis is much stronger than in the west whereas theosis isn't a big deal for the Arminians as I understand it. Whereas it's a big deal IMO in the Book of Mormon as I mentioned in the other thread.

I'd be interested in hearing you chime in on the nature of the relationship between Father and Son as well given the comments in the other thread attempting to argue the Book of Mormon is either modalist or adopts a position akin to Swedenborg.

[Bobbieaware]

17 hours ago, JarMan said:

Your argument would only make sense if you could show that the Book of Moses predated Lehi. Otherwise you are assuming almost the very thing (the Book of Moses is ancient) you are trying to prove (the Book of Mormon is ancient). You may as well skip the first step and just proclaim the Book of Mormon to be ancient because you believe it to be ancient.

But logical incoherence aside, your argument still fails because the Book of Moses does not present the same Satan as the Book of Mormon. In fact, the Book of Moses is more clearly seen as part of the process of development that I have been describing. After the Book of Mormon we get D&C 29 which adds some details. Then there are new details that emerge from Moses that aren't contained in the Book of Mormon or the D&C. Later we get the Book of Abraham that offers additional details not seen in any of the previous three sources. Finally, we get the temple ceremonies that add even more details. If all of these prophets had the same conception, if they were all receiving revelation from the same source, why do they all present something different? And isn’t it clear that the ideas got more sophisticated throughout Joseph’s life?

Can’t you see the silliness and utter futility of this discussion? Why do you expect believing Latter-Day Saints, people who genuinely believe the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses to be restored ancient scripture that provide perfectly reasonable and satisfying answers to your question, to play by the rules of evidence insisted upon by unbelievers who invariably leave the principles of faith and the possibility of divine revelation out of the truth discovery equation?  The only reasonable thing to do in this instance is agree to disagree and move on to another topic.

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Could you go through some of those? Thus far we've just discussed Satan and Atonement. Not sure what you mean with the rest. You're wrong btw about burning heretics. That was common in eastern Christianity - particularly of the Manicheans. Not sure on war what you are saying the Arminians believed that's in the Book of Mormon. As for Satan, I believe it is the same although I'd have to double check to make sure the dating is all on par. Of course the eastern doctrine of theosis is much stronger than in the west whereas theosis isn't a big deal for the Arminians as I understand it. Whereas it's a big deal IMO in the Book of Mormon as I mentioned in the other thread.

I'd be interested in hearing you chime in on the nature of the relationship between Father and Son as well given the comments in the other thread attempting to argue the Book of Mormon is either modalist or adopts a position akin to Swedenborg.

I've discussed several of these issues in recent threads:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69696-could-the-book-of-mormon-be-a-17th-century-pious-fraud/

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69831-mormons-handbook-on-war-and-peace/

The one issue (among those I listed in a previous post) that I haven't discussed in any of the threads yet is the Book of Mormon atonement theory. I think the Book of Mormon atonement theory most closely resembles Calvin's penal substitution theory but with elements of Grotius' governmental theory. This is something I am still exploring, though. My understanding is that Calvin's theory was quite novel based on his background in law and that the view pre-Calvin was essentially the ransom theory. The point is that I think the Book of Mormon atonement theory fits nicely within my proposed temporal/spatial window.

As for the burning of heretics, there are several details the Book of Mormon provides that match 16th Century practices. I'll let you read the thread if you're interested, but my sense is that some of the specific details described in the Book of Mormon didn't appear until probably about the 15th Century.

As for the other thread, thanks for making me aware of it. I probably won't have time to comment but I may follow along.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Can’t you see the silliness and utter futility of this discussion? Why do you expect believing Latter-Day Saints, people who genuinely believe the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses to be restored ancient scripture that provide perfectly reasonable and satisfying answers to your question, to play by the rules of evidence insisted upon by unbelievers who invariably leave the principles of faith and the possibility of divine revelation out of the truth discovery equation?  The only reasonable thing to do in this instance is agree to disagree and move on to another topic.

 

Feel free to move on.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Can’t you see the silliness and utter futility of this discussion? Why do you expect believing Latter-Day Saints, people who genuinely believe the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses to be restored ancient scripture that provide perfectly reasonable and satisfying answers to your question, to play by the rules of evidence insisted upon by unbelievers who invariably leave the principles of faith and the possibility of divine revelation out of the truth discovery equation?  The only reasonable thing to do in this instance is agree to disagree and move on to another topic.

 

You have a perfectly fine theological answer to the problem he poses. However, that's not the topic of the thread. The thread is exploring historical answers to this problem.

[clarkgoble]

I'll check out those threads later when I have a bit more time.

[Bobbieaware]

22 hours ago, Gray said:

You have a perfectly fine theological answer to the problem he poses. However, that's not the topic of the thread. The thread is exploring historical answers to this problem.

I’m glad you appear think it’s worthwhile spending time in search of historical precedents that would tend to bolster the falsely claimed ‘historicity’ of a book of pseudo-historical fiction. 

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I’m glad you appear think it’s worthwhile spending time in search of historical precedents that would tend to bolster the falsely claimed ‘historicity’ of a book of pseudo-historical fiction. 

All I heard in my head when I read this was "strawman strawman strawman."

[piccione]

Actually, the reformed Egyptian does not imply the word Satan, the glyphs there are essentially "opponent of the father."  The translator just rendered that as Satan since that is the modern name for him.  See www.academia.edu/19655755/Translation_of_the_Caractors_Document_Final_Printed_Publication_ pages 143-144.

[piccione]

Also, there are a variety of Mesoamerican gods that might qualify as Satan, so who knows if that also influenced the Book of Mormon religious construct with regards to Satan.

[Bobbieaware]

On 12/19/2017 at 11:39 PM, Gray said:

All I heard in my head when I read this was "strawman strawman strawman."

My point is I’m glad to see that for the sake of discussion you’re willing to suspend your disbelief and at least theoretically consider the possibility that the Book of Mormon might be an actual historical account of an ancient people. I say this because it appears to me you’ve made up your mind and fancy yourself as having a sure knowledge the Book of Mormon is an ahistorical work of pure fiction. So it seems to me it’s a step in the right direction for an unbeliever, such as yourself, to at least theoretically approach the Book of Mormon as a possible authentic history; for in this discussion unless the Book of Mormon is at least theoretically considered to be a possible real and true historical account there’s no purpose in wanting to participate other than having a cynical desire to debunk. But I think you’re better than that.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[cdowis]

On 12/18/2017 at 11:49 PM, JarMan said:

I've discussed several of these issues in recent threads:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69696-could-the-book-of-mormon-be-a-17th-century-pious-fraud/

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69831-mormons-handbook-on-war-and-peace/

The one issue (among those I listed in a previous post) that I haven't discussed in any of the threads yet is the Book of Mormon atonement theory. I think the Book of Mormon atonement theory most closely resembles Calvin's penal substitution theory but with elements of Grotius' governmental theory. This is something I am still exploring, though. My understanding is that Calvin's theory was quite novel based on his background in law and that the view pre-Calvin was essentially the ransom theory. The point is that I think the Book of Mormon atonement theory fits nicely within my proposed temporal/spatial window.

As for the burning of heretics, there are several details the Book of Mormon provides that match 16th Century practices. I'll let you read the thread if you're interested, but my sense is that some of the specific details described in the Book of Mormon didn't appear until probably about the 15th Century.

 

As you are aware, parallels do not prove correlation.  Similar ideas, customs and constructs can be developed in different parts of the world, independent from each other.

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

As you are aware, parallels do not prove correlation.  Similar ideas, customs and constructs can be developed in different parts of the world, independent from each other.

I am naturally skeptical of parallels. Supposed parallels that indicate 19th Century authorship don't seem significant to me. I am also skeptical of many apologetic parallels that either show links to ancient Israel or to meso-America. But I think there is a systematic way to examine parallels to help determine whether they are significant or random. In this discussion we are talking about the character of Satan. We have discussed parallels to various Satan-like figures across world cultures. There are certain characteristics of mythological figures that seem to be ubiquitous across time and space and thus we can develop a baseline that represents essentially a random correlation. In theory we could develop certain objective criteria (based on the specific characteristics of Satan described in the Book of Mormon) and do an exhaustive review of mythological characters and compute a similarity score based on our criteria. We would expect many characters to have a non-zero score indicating they shared some characteristics of Satan, but this wouldn't necessarily be significant. We would need to see a remarkable separation from the baseline of random scores for us to even consider that our correlation may indicate causation.

But this is just one subject, and even a remarkable score could be random rather than causative. So we would need to run similar tests on many other aspects of the Book of Mormon. We could look at governmental forms, atonement theory, philosophy of war, soteriology, and dozens of other aspects of the Book of Mormon. If we see a convergence of all or most of these ideas existing in a certain temporal/spatial window then I think we would have good evidence for causation.

Now that I've proposed a theoretical methodology for testing apparent parallels, it should be immediately apparent that executing such a wide-ranging study is far beyond the capabilities of some random guy on the internet. I don't have scholarly expertise in any of the requisite fields or much free time. My only tools are a keen interest in the Book of Mormon and the audacity to consider non-traditional approaches. . . and the internet, of course. But here's the thing: my hypothesis should be easy to falsify. All it would require is showing that some certain aspects of the Book of Mormon could not possibly have come from the 17th Century. I am as happy to falsify my hypothesis as I am to support it, but every time I explore a certain aspect of the Book of Mormon it becomes abundantly clear that it was not just known in the 17th Century, but also the subject of much discussion and controversy. Maybe I will put together a list of the things I have looked at so far.

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

But here's the thing: my hypothesis should be easy to falsify. All it would require is showing that some certain aspects of the Book of Mormon could not possibly have come from the 17th Century. I am as happy to falsify my hypothesis as I am to support it, but every time I explore a certain aspect of the Book of Mormon it becomes abundantly clear that it was not just known in the 17th Century, but also the subject of much discussion and controversy. Maybe I will put together a list of the things I have looked at so far.

cureloms and cumoms

Paanchi, Pahoran

sheum

the presence of elephants (wooly mammoths) in Mexico/Central America

record keeping on metal and gold plates 

large standing army  of stateless terrorists taking permanent shelter in mountains

Edited December 23, 2017 by cdowis

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

cureloms and cumoms

Paanchi, Pahoran

sheum

the presence of elephants (wooly mammoths) in Mexico/Central America

record keeping on metal and gold plates 

large standing army  of stateless terrorists taking permanent shelter in mountains

Let me just deal with the Book of Mormon Gadianton Robbers, first, since I have what I think is a significant response. Hugo Grotius produced a monumental work in 1625 called The Law of War and Peace. It is considered to be the basis of modern international law. In it, he provides significant discussion regarding pirates and robbers. He describes "robbers" as "a band of men uniting together SOLELY FOR THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES" [capitalization in the original translation]. In his discussion he doesn't afford pirates and robbers the same rights in war as he does to sovereign states: "Pirates and robbers, as they form no civil community, cannot rest any claim to protection and support upon the law of nations." Also: ". . . there can be no hesitation in pronouncing all wars to be just that are made upon pirates, general robbers, and enemies of the human race." Throughout his work, Grotius makes several observations about robbers and how they have been treated historically or how they should be treated that bear remarkable similarities to the Book of Mormon robbers. I will give an example that I think is quite striking.

The first several chapters of 3 Nephi describe a war between the Nephites and the Gadianton Robbers. At the end of the war the Nephites take many prisoners. The prisoners are given the choice to be put to death or take a covenant to quit their former robbing ways. Most of them make the covenant and are given land to work. Grotius provides commentary that describes almost this exact conditions in the Book of Mormon:

Quote

As to engagements with pirates, we may observe, that Pompey in a great measure concluded the disputes with them by treaty, sparing their lives, and allowing them places to reside in, on condition of their abandoning their former way of life.

Grotius continues his discussion by addressing the idea that pirates are not to be dealt with in good faith since they are "atrocious malefactors." He ultimately rejects this argument: "the very circumstance of their being men, entitles them to those privileges which are sanctioned by the law of nature, among which the observance of engagements is one" and immediately proceeds to a discussion of the nature of treaties or promises with pirates. He first tells us:

Quote

Now where a promise has been extorted, the promisor is released from his engagement, as having unjustly sustained a damage, by an act repugnant to the nature of human liberty, and to the nature of human action, which ought to be free.

This, it must be admitted, may sometimes happen, but does not apply to all promise made to pirates. For to make the person, to whom a promise has been given, liable to release the engagement, the promiser himself must have been forced to give the promise under impressions of unjust fear.

From this he appears to be saying that some promises made to pirates may be morally non-binding if the pirates are unjustly forced to make the promise. Grotius doesn't expound on what might be considered unjust fear. From the discussion so far we are left wondering whether the promise made in the Book of Mormon to the captured Gadianton Robbers was just or not, since the only other option for the robbers was some sort of punishment. Fortunately, Grotius immediately answers this question for us:

Quote

A promise too made through the compulsion of fear will be binding, where it has been ratified by the solemn sanction of an oath: for in that case it is not only one man making an engagement to a fellow creature, but binding himself to God by the most solemn appeal: against which neither fear nor any other motive can form an exception

We are thereby assured that the arrangement made between the Nephites and the Gadianton Robbers is proper since the Book of Mormon "covenant" appears to be identical to Grotius' "solemn sanction of an oath."

I've mentioned this work of Grotius in a past thread because it pertains to so many of the issues the Nephites faced. Besides the issues I just mentioned, here are a few more that are relevant to the Book of Mormon:

1) When war against a foreign enemy is justified

2) When rebellion against a sovereign is justified

3) The justification for using strategy or deception in war

4) The treatment and the exchange of prisoners

5) Rights of postliminium

6) Whether it is justified to forcefully reclaim lands that have long since been in the possession of another people

7) Which acts in war are lawful/unlawful

8 ) Moderation in war

9) Treaties and other engagements

10) Subjection of tributary rulers

Essentially every aspect of war in the Book of Mormon is expounded upon in Grotius' work. And I have not found a single instance where Mormon's (or any other righteous Nephite's) idea of what is just in war is contradicted by Grotius.

 

Edited December 23, 2017 by JarMan

[cdowis]

 

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

Let me just deal with the Book of Mormon Gadianton Robbers, first, since I have what I think is a significant response. Hugo Grotius produced a monumental work in 1625 called The Law of War and Peace. It is considered to be the basis of modern international law. In it, he provides significant discussion regarding pirates and robbers. He describes "robbers" as "a band of men uniting together SOLELY FOR THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES" [capitalization in the original translation]. In his discussion he doesn't afford pirates and robbers the same rights in war as he does to sovereign states: "Pirates and robbers, as they form no civil community, cannot rest any claim to protection and support upon the law of nations." Also: ". . . there can be no hesitation in pronouncing all wars to be just that are made upon pirates, general robbers, and enemies of the human race." Throughout his work, Grotius makes several observations about robbers and how they have been treated historically or how they should be treated that bear remarkable similarities to the Book of Mormon robbers. I will give an example that I think is quite striking.

Please tell us abut the mountain hideouts of the pirates and thieves, which was exactly the point o my  comment.  OF COURSE,  there have been bad guys through out the history of the world, but I am giving you what YOU wanted == specific detail or which you need to give an account.

You are trying to be clever but I give you another chance before I waste any more time on your games.

The first several chapters of 3 Nephi describe a war between the Nephites and the Gadianton Robbers. At the end of the war the Nephites take many prisoners. The prisoners are given the choice to be put to death or take a covenant to quit their former robbing ways. Most of them make the covenant and are given land to work. Grotius provides commentary that describes almost this exact conditions in the Book of Mormon:

So what?????????????  Stop wasting my time;

Grotius continues his discussion by addressing the idea that pirates are not to be dealt with in good faith since they are "atrocious malefactors." He ultimately rejects this argument: "the very circumstance of their being men, entitles them to those privileges which are sanctioned by the law of nature, among which the observance of engagements is one" and immediately proceeds to a discussion of the nature of treaties or promises with pirates. He first tells us:

GOODBYE

 

Edited December 23, 2017 by cdowis

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

Please tell us abut the mountain hideouts of the pirates and thieves, which was exactly the point o my  comment.  OF COURSE,  there have been bad guys through out the history of the world, but I am giving you what YOU wanted == specific detail or which you need to give an account.

You are trying to be clever but I give you another chance before I waste any more time on your games.

Thanks for the one last chance. (I promise not to disappoint.)

Grotius drew heavily on Roman history in his book and the specific accounts of robbers he referenced came mostly from that time period. For example:

Quote

Pirates and robbers, as they form no civil community, cannot rest any claim to protection and support upon the law of nations. Tiberius, as we are informed by Tacitus, when Tacfarinas sent ambassadors to him, spurned at the idea of treating with a robber, as with a lawful enemy. Yet sometimes a pledge of public faith, and the rights of embassy are allowed to men of that description, which was done by Pompey to the fugitives from the Pyrenean forest.

This little bit from Grotius' work, besides describing robbers who hid in the forest, refers to a well-known robber from Roman times named Tacfarinas. Tacfarinas was a defector from the Roman army who led a series of battles against his former country. This quote from the wikipedia article I linked to gives the answer to your question:

Quote

But the Romans were much mistaken if they believed this battle to be the end of Tacfarinas. The latter proved a resilient and determined adversary. For the ensuing seven years, he waged a devastating war on the Roman province. But neither side was able to score a decisive victory. Tacfarinas could not defeat the Romans in conventional military operations such as pitched battles and sieges. The Romans, for their part, could not eradicate such a mobile enemy, despite inflicting severe defeats on him, as Tacfarinas enjoyed the ultimate resort of vanishing into the desert or the mountains, beyond the Romans' reach.

Tacfarinas actually bears a strong resemblance to some of the Gadianton Robbers in the Book of Mormon in that he was a defector from among the Romans, he was able to gain command of the armies of other peoples who were enemies to the Romans, and he used many of the same marauding tactics described in the Book of Mormon. (Did I mention that he escaped to the mountains to avoid destruction from the regular Roman armies?)

Edited December 24, 2017 by JarMan

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

Tacfarinas actually bears a strong resemblance to some of the Gadianton Robbers in the Book of Mormon in that he was a defector from among the Romans, he was able to gain command of the armies of other peoples who were enemies to the Romans, and he used many of the same marauding tactics described in the Book of Mormon. (Did I mention that he escaped to the mountains to avoid destruction from the regular Roman armies?)

III Nephi 2:11 through 4:28

especially 

3 Nephi 4 [1] And it came to pass that in the latter end of the eighteenth year those armies of robbers had prepared for battle, and began to come down and to sally forth from the hills, and out of the mountains, and the wilderness, and their strongholds, and their secret places, and began to take possession of the lands, both which were in the land south and which were in the land north, and began to take possession of all the lands which had been deserted by the Nephites, and the cities which had been left desolate.

So YOU give me a parallel in your chosen century.  Something that Joseph Smith copied from that vast library in Palmyra, NY with his forth grade education.  That same library where he got Paanchi, Pahoran, and sheum.

Also I strongly suggest that you do not mention pirates again, or I am out of here.  You need something really really impressive at this point.

Edited December 24, 2017 by cdowis