Book of Mormon Cosmology

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

A lake of fire and brimstone is just use of a volcanic image. That's not at all uncommon. It appears quite early in Egyptian narratives and is a common part of the book of the dead. That's next door to Israel. Given the mixing and the reality of semiotic drift, one would expect Ghenna imagery to pick up meanings and imagery from similar symbols. Kothar the Canaanite God while not really a devil like figure has a workshop in an underground cave with volcanic imagery. (Kothar aids Baal against Yam) 

Fire and brimstone is part of 1 Enoch 14:9 too where people are tormented by fire in the presence of angels. It's also in the Book of Jubilees and a few others. So it definitely pre-dates Revelation. How far back isn't clear. 

There is lots of potential volcanic imagery in Deuteronomy and Exodus, although primarily associated with God although some, like John Day, argue that this is either fire from sacrifice or lightning. While the YHWH as a volcanic god isn't too popular these days, earlier in the 20th century it was a very popular view. 

However I tend to think we're dealing more with Egyptian influence likely from Ammit. She is the eater of the dead, consumes those whose lives don't balance out, and lives beside a lake of fire in the underworld. Why Nephi and company would have that imagery is of course a different matter. It's possible that in pre-exilic period there was more of that in the scriptures.

Fire and brimstone raining down seems pretty common imagery and it seems obvious it's referring to volcanic emissions. A river of fire, then, could correspond to lava flows. But I think a lake of fire may be something that has to be inferred from a volcano rather than seen. Maybe it's possible to stand on the rim of a volcano to witness the lake of fire and then live to tell about it, but I've only seen that in modern times on the Science Channel with the help of helicopters and gas masks. My point is that a lake of fire seems to be an idea (either based on inference or actual experience) that developed later. This is based purely on the bible so I don't know what other cultures may have known about volcanoes. Some scholars feel that Revelation was at least partially written after, and in response to, the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD. So it's possible that the idea of a lake of fire developed then.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

I've always assumed that the Mulekites high-tailed it to the nearest body of water (the Mediterranean) to get away as quickly as possible.

If getting away was their only intention, then there would be little reason to sail to a certain death away from land. In the 6th century BC, the idea of sailing off into the unknown ocean to find new land is, in my opinion, anachronistic.

There are only three known maps from the 6th century BC. They all depict a flat earth. A round earth wasn't depicted on maps until the Hellenistic Period, so this is probably what the world looked like to Mulek and his crew:

During Lehi and Mulek's time, a journey "around the world" meant sailing along the coasts, in a circle. The map here comes from a work from the 6th century BC entitled "Ges Periodos" or "Travels round the Earth". If this was how they perceived the world, there would have been no reason to escape death by sailing into the unknown. If they did follow the coasts 'round the earth to escape, they were most likely bound for India where other Israelites were said to be living in exile. The data does show ample archeological and genetic evidence for Israelite migrations by boat into the Indian Ocean as early as the 6th century BC. There are numerous accounts of an exiled king from the west arriving in the East Indies in the 6th century BC. Coincidentally, those islands were known as the Maluku or Moluk Islands, from the semitic word for king (1). One of the original spellings of Mulek in the Book of Mormon is Mulok.

_______________________________________________________________________
(1) The name Maluku is thought to have been derived from the term used by Arab traders for the region, Jazirat al-Moluk ("the island of the kings"), from the word malik (pl. moluk) .^[3] 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

It's hard to escape the conclusion there is a link between the Book of Mormon conception of hell and the Book of Revelation description. Here's a quick comparison of some of Jacob's teachings from 2 Nephi 9 and Jacob 3. (Revelation in red.)

 Of course it's not just Jacob, but other Book of Mormon prophets, as well, who seem to be alluding to Revelation.

The Book of Revelation (the Apocalypse) certainly derives its symbolism and conceptual nature from both ancient Egyptian religion and from the vast array of apocalyptic literature which preceded it.  Especially Daniel.  However, a huge modern collection is available in James Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, in two volumes.  The standard phraseology adopted by Wycliffe and Tyndale, and continued by the KJV had a powerful influence on whoever did the Early Modern English translation of the Book of Mormon.  No question about that.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, JarMan said:

Maybe they did. Didn’t the Lehites land on the west coast? And the Mulekites and Jaredites on the east coast? Wouldn’t this indicate the world was round?

Eratosthenes and his friends knew for a fact that the Earth was round, and were able to measure the actual circumference.  Not everyone was a dufus.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

..............................................

The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts mention lakes of fire, and exposure to “the language of the Egyptians” would have given the Nephite authors some familiarity with the term, and they could have easily appropriated it for their own use in their separate religion.

Correct, but it is quite likely that both Lehi and Nephi were trained scribes (and that this was a family tradition).  If they were systematically trained by Egyptian scribes (either in Judah or Phoenicia), they would have practiced reading and writing standard Egyptian texts -- and therefore have learned much about Egyptian religion and culture.

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If getting away was their only intention, then there would be little reason to sail to a certain death away from land. In the 6th century BC, the idea of sailing off into the unknown ocean to find new land is, in my opinion, anachronistic.

There are only three known maps from the 6th century BC. They all depict a flat earth. A round earth wasn't depicted on maps until the Hellenistic Period, so this is probably what the world looked like to Mulek and his crew:

During Lehi and Mulek's time, a journey "around the world" meant sailing along the coasts, in a circle. The map here comes from a work from the 6th century BC entitled "Ges Periodos" or "Travels round the Earth". If this was how they perceived the world, there would have been no reason to escape death by sailing into the unknown. If they did follow the coasts 'round the earth to escape, they were most likely bound for India where other Israelites were said to be living in exile. The data does show ample archeological and genetic evidence for Israelite migrations by boat into the Indian Ocean as early as the 6th century BC. There are numerous accounts of an exiled king from the west arriving in the East Indies in the 6th century BC. Coincidentally, those islands were known as the Maluku or Moluk Islands, from the semitic word for king (1). One of the original spellings of Mulek in the Book of Mormon is Mulok.

_______________________________________________________________________
(1) The name Maluku is thought to have been derived from the term used by Arab traders for the region, Jazirat al-Moluk ("the island of the kings"), from the word malik (pl. moluk) .^[3] 

I think that’s why the Mulekites had to make some pit stops on the way. They may have initially been heading to some known land. A couple of years ago I had a member of my ward (with proud Scottish heritage) tell me after GD class that the Mulekites had made a pit stop in Scotland. I had never heard that theory before but there are apparently Scottish legends that have some parallels.

A round earth may be anachronistic but so is a moving earth. Nevertheless they both seem to be part of the Nephite belief system. How to reconcile these apparent anachronisms, though, is a different discussion. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct, but it is quite likely that both Lehi and Nephi were trained scribes (and that this was a family tradition).  If they were systematically trained by Egyptian scribes (either in Judah or Phoenicia), they would have practiced reading and writing standard Egyptian texts -- and therefore have learned much about Egyptian religion and culture.

In that case, where the "lake of fire" concept was developed some 1600 hundreds years before, and documented in several generations of texts (Pyramid, Coffin, Book of the Dead, etc.), it makes sense that they would have been thoroughly familiar with it.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

In that case, where the "lake of fire" concept was developed some 1600 hundreds years before, and documented in several generations of texts (Pyramid, Coffin, Book of the Dead, etc.), it makes sense that they would have been thoroughly familiar with it.

Yes, and, as already pointed out, one can find it in Book of the Dead spell 17:40-41, Papyrus of Ani:  š n sdt “lake of fire.”

Edited January 29, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

18 hours ago, JarMan said:

Fire and brimstone raining down seems pretty common imagery and it seems obvious it's referring to volcanic emissions. A river of fire, then, could correspond to lava flows. But I think a lake of fire may be something that has to be inferred from a volcano rather than seen. Maybe it's possible to stand on the rim of a volcano to witness the lake of fire and then live to tell about it, but I've only seen that in modern times on the Science Channel with the help of helicopters and gas masks. My point is that a lake of fire seems to be an idea (either based on inference or actual experience) that developed later. This is based purely on the bible so I don't know what other cultures may have known about volcanoes. Some scholars feel that Revelation was at least partially written after, and in response to, the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD. So it's possible that the idea of a lake of fire developed then.

I would assume somewhere there has been an open volcano that was lower than mountains surrounding it so as long as one was not downwind, one could see the "lake of fire" easily enough.

Plus a larger lake wouldn't be hard to extrapolate from 'ponds' such as this.  (Actually looks like it is larger than I thought it was, they call it a permanent lake of lava as it has been around for over a hundred years)

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/erta-ale

If you don't see it right off, scan through the photos to look for the guy in tshirt, shorts, hiking boots, and baseball cap standing next to a good size lava 'pond'.  

Just found another one where the guy is squatting a way above the lake, looking down into it, the size is more obvious.  No mask as far as I can tell.

Volcanoes with lava lakes are apparently rare (currently six in the world), but as can be seen in these photos, at least some can be approached unprotected.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

If you’ve seen lava it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to come up with a lake.

 

Even ignoring Egypt and its knowledge there are many dead and active volcanoes in the Syria region. Al Safa is the best known and even had a boiling lava lake in the 19th century.

[theplains]

On 27/01/2018 at 5:02 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Good chicken & egg question, because you can't have one without the other.  The Fall is inevitable, producing a need for reconciliation (atonement), but the reconcilation had been arranged for before the Fall.  The matter is processual and a ritual anyhow, so that we are caught in an infinite regress, since there was no beginning and there shall be no end, i.e., there is an infinity of Falls and Atonements, and they are part and parcel of apotheosis.

What do you mean there are an infinity of Falls and Atonements?

Thanks,
Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

What do you mean there are an infinity of Falls and Atonements?.....................................

As I quoted Hugh Nibley on another thread:

All the worlds are organized in a common pattern, . . in all the worlds you will find God alone rules but with a presidency of three and a council of twelve.  This is the rule of all worlds.  The repetitions are infinite in number and scope . . . .  As a Yeu becomes a Father, the Father then appoints new Yeus (Jehovahs) for new worlds who in turn become Fathers, etc. (cf. First Jeu 48:8; 50:1-3; 97:25-28; Pistis Sophia I, 91, 94; III, 285, 319, 329-330; IV, 355:15,23, 370:10,19,24).  FARMS Preliminary Report N-APO, "Apocryphal Writings," p. 13; see C. Schmidt & V. MacDermot, Books of Jeu (Leiden: Brill, 1978).

Edited January 30, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[JarMan]

On 1/28/2018 at 9:28 PM, Calm said:

I would assume somewhere there has been an open volcano that was lower than mountains surrounding it so as long as one was not downwind, one could see the "lake of fire" easily enough.

Plus a larger lake wouldn't be hard to extrapolate from 'ponds' such as this.  (Actually looks like it is larger than I thought it was, they call it a permanent lake of lava as it has been around for over a hundred years)

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/erta-ale

If you don't see it right off, scan through the photos to look for the guy in tshirt, shorts, hiking boots, and baseball cap standing next to a good size lava 'pond'.  

Just found another one where the guy is squatting a way above the lake, looking down into it, the size is more obvious.  No mask as far as I can tell.

Volcanoes with lava lakes are apparently rare (currently six in the world), but as can be seen in these photos, at least some can be approached unprotected.

Israel doesn’t have any active volcanoes. But they may still be in range of an eruption. It makes sense to me, then, that the lake of fire became part of jewish mythology only after they had spread to areas that did have active volcanoes. 

But there are more similarities between the Book of Mormon hell and the NT hell than just the lake of fire and the second death. We have the idea of chains of hell (Rev 20, 2Peter 2, Jude 1). We also have spirit prison and spirit paradise (Luke 16:22-23). And then there is the personification of death and hell in the Book of Mormon that is quite similar to Death and Hades in the NT (Rev6, 20 and 2 Nephi 9, 28). I don’t think we can stop at saying that NT words and phrases were incorporated into the Book of Mormon. I think we have to acknowledge that NT ideas of hell influenced the Book of Mormon. 

[Josh Khinder]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 6:06 PM, JarMan said:

The Bible has a generally understood cosmology. The Book of Abraham has a cosmology that nobody seems to agree on. But what does Book of Mormon cosmology look like? It's a little tough to tell since there is not a creation account like in the other two books. Because of a different thread discussing the meaning of Helaman 12:13-15 and whether or not this was describing heliocentrism, I started wondering whether a general cosmology could be pieced together. The general questions I'm interested in exploring are how the earth relates to the rest of the cosmos and how hell fits into the overall picture. Where do the heavenly bodies reside and what is their relation to earth? How is the earth viewed as a whole? What is the location and nature of hell? Where do God and the angels reside? Where do the devil and his angels reside and operate? Does life exist elsewhere in the cosmos? Where is the afterlife located? What understanding is there for natural phenomena such as extreme weather and earthquakes? Is Noah's flood considered universal or even contemplated, for that matter? There are many questions I could add to this list.

I'm not asking about contemporary Mormon cosmology. Much has been written on that already. I'm purely interested in what the Book of Mormon has to say. Maybe it's silent on some of these things. That's okay. I'm just as interested in what has been left out compared to the bible, for instance. If you want, you can think of this as another Book of Mormon geography thread (haven't had one of those for awhile) just on a larger scale and with a metaphysical twist. 

Don't expect the Book of Mormon to ever agree on Mormon teachings, at the last General Conference, President Nelson listed only two teachings that agree with Mormonism

 

Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose

Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fullness of the Gospel ? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covanants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason:

General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28.

[JarMan]

19 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Don't expect the Book of Mormon to ever agree on Mormon teachings, at the last General Conference, President Nelson listed only two teachings that agree with Mormonism

 

Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose

Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fullness of the Gospel ? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covanants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason:

General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28.

I think it’s quite clear the contemporary Mormon view on the pre-existence and afterlife is different than what is explained in the Book of Mormon. But I really can’t find anything in the Book of Mormon that clearly contradicts the NT exposition of these issues.

[Josh Khinder]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I think it’s quite clear the contemporary Mormon view on the pre-existence and afterlife is different than what is explained in the Book of Mormon. But I really can’t find anything in the Book of Mormon that clearly contradicts the NT exposition of these issues.

Are you kidding President Nelson was correct only two teachings in the Book of Mormon that agrees with Mormonism at the last General Conference  

[clarkgoble]

22 hours ago, JarMan said:

Israel doesn’t have any active volcanoes. But they may still be in range of an eruption. It makes sense to me, then, that the lake of fire became part of jewish mythology only after they had spread to areas that did have active volcanoes. 

Israel doesn't but as I'd said Syria does and very close to Israel is a HUGE volcano that's been active since 12,000 BC and just a 150 years ago had lava lakes observable by people with 19th century technology. Here's a map to Al Safa. Note that the volcano field, as you can see, is huge -- thousands of square miles. If you look on the map the distance to Al Safa is about on par with the distance from Nazareth to Jerusalem. The very dark image with the W on it is the active volcano, giving you an idea how huge it is. (As big as the Sea of Galilee) The dark field going to the south east are lava flows. There are 38 further smaller volcanic cones there and to the west of the main volcano. The distance is about 60 miles due east from the Golan Heights or about 80 miles from the Sea of Galilee.

To give you a comparison, that's on par with how far Mt. Rainier National Park is from Seattle. (Rainier being a semi-dormant volcano most are aware of)

Edited January 31, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

22 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

Don't expect the Book of Mormon to ever agree on Mormon teachings, at the last General Conference, President Nelson listed only two teachings that agree with Mormonism

Could you clarify your claims? I'm not quite sure what you're attempting to argue. Linking to the talk in question would be helpful. Also note that further light and knowledge has been revealed that is not in the extant Book of Mormon we have. However around ½ the Book of Mormon was sealed and is to be translated in the future. We're also missing Mormon's history from Lehi through the first Mosiah - the so called lost 116 pages although scholars estimate that it was more than 200 pages actually and thus around ⅓ the size of our current Book of Mormon.

I'd also note that "fulness of the gospel" doesn't mean "every doctrine or claim about existence."  The fulness of the gospel are those doctrines related to our redemption by Christ.

 "The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation" (Benson,  A Witness and a Warning, 18-19).

[Josh Khinder]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Could you clarify your claims? I'm not quite sure what you're attempting to argue. Linking to the talk in question would be helpful. Also note that further light and knowledge has been revealed that is not in the extant Book of Mormon we have. However around ½ the Book of Mormon was sealed and is to be translated in the future. We're also missing Mormon's history from Lehi through the first Mosiah - the so called lost 116 pages although scholars estimate that it was more than 200 pages actually and thus around ⅓ the size of our current Book of Mormon.

I'd also note that "fulness of the gospel" doesn't mean "every doctrine or claim about existence."  The fulness of the gospel are those doctrines related to our redemption by Christ.

 "The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation" (Benson,  A Witness and a Warning, 18-19).

The Book of Mormon affirms:

1.      The individual identity of Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ.

2.      The necessity of the Fall of Adam and the wisdom of Eve, that men might have joy.

Of these two teachings that Book of Mormon affirms one is a misnomer since the Creeds all teach Heavenly Father, and his beloved Son are separate and distinct persons , so one of these isn’t unique with the Mormon faith only the second one is .

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/the-book-of-mormon-what-would-your-life-be-like-without-it?lang=eng

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Josh Khinder said:

The Book of Mormon affirms:

1.      The individual identity of Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ.

2.      The necessity of the Fall of Adam and the wisdom of Eve, that men might have joy.

Well that's not technically correct. Typically theologians and philosophers distinguish the conception of the Trinity in the east from the Trinity in the west. The difference is precisely over this notion of identity as it relates to the notion of 'self.' The SEP has a good entry on this if you are interested. The eastern tradition is I fully confess much, much more like Mormon theology (in numerous ways - not just the issue of social trinitarianism - although even in the east there are many who reject the idea of three consciousnesses in the Trinity) However typically due to a perhaps undue focus on America which was primarily colonized by factions of the western Christian tradition (Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Anabaptists, etc.) when Mormons contrast themselves with Christianity they're typically talking about post-Augustine western Christianity. Largely because the speakers or authors are just plain ignorant of eastern Christianity let alone African Christianity.

Anyway pretty prominent theologians like Karl Barth, Karl Rahner and others dismiss treating hypostasis (often translated as person) as really being persons or three selves in the Trinity. However the idea is pretty prominent in the west and most would say that Augustine is a one-self not three-selves Trinitarian. (Again see the SEP on the History of the Trinity) Unsurprisingly while most Mormons think the apostasy was well under way before Augustine, many tend to see Augustine as the boogey-man of the apostasy. (Perhaps a tad unfairly) Regardless of who's to blame though, your claim about identity in the Trinity is just wrong.

To the Fall, again while some Christians see the fall as necessary, that's hardly universal. Further saying that the fall was necessary is far too vague unless you explain how it is necessary. So most would say for us to exist as mortals Adam had to fall. However most don't think, like the Book of Mormon does, that it was good for Adam and Eve to fall. So for instance a Calvinist thinks that all that happens is necessary so in that sense the fall is necessary. But that's certainly not the sense Mormons mean it. Mormons mean it in the sense that we'd be happier being fallen than being in the garden. Further Mormons think the fall was necessary to replenish the earth - the command given to Adam and Eve. Not all Christians accept that. The way Mormon thinkers often put it, in opposition to most Christians (especially in 1830s America) was that the fall was fortunate.

Now it's true that some Christians did and do think Adam and Eve couldn't have children until after the fall. Going to the key figure in Western Christianity, Augustine, famously, thinks they did have sex in the garden of eden. (This is actually a big deal in his writings) Further for Augustine in City of God it is clear that God created perfection in Adam and Eve and they lived in a perfect world. Everything is the blame of Adam and Eve. Milton and thus most of post-Milton popular Christianity follows Augustine. (Sex in the garden is also a big deal for Milton) For Mormons and clearly for the Book of Mormon the opposite is true. It's a paradise but far from perfection due to not being able to have children nor being able to have a fulness of joy. So the fall is necessary for Adam and Eve to reach perfection. For Augustine and much of western Christianity the exact opposite is true.

Edited February 1, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Josh Khinder]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Well that's not technically correct. Typically theologians and philosophers distinguish the conception of the Trinity in the east from the Trinity in the west. The difference is precisely over this notion of identity as it relates to the notion of 'self.' The SEP has a good entry on this if you are interested. The eastern tradition is I fully confess much, much more like Mormon theology (in numerous ways - not just the issue of social trinitarianism - although even in the east there are many who reject the idea of three consciousnesses in the Trinity) However typically due to a perhaps undue focus on America which was primarily colonized by factions of the western Christian tradition (Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Anabaptists, etc.) when Mormons contrast themselves with Christianity they're typically talking about post-Augustine western Christianity. Largely because the speakers or authors are just plain ignorant of eastern Christianity let alone African Christianity.

Anyway pretty prominent theologians like Karl Barth, Karl Rahner and others dismiss treating hypostasis (often translated as person) as really being persons or three selves in the Trinity. However the idea is pretty prominent in the west and most would say that Augustine is a one-self not three-selves Trinitarian. (Again see the SEP on the History of the Trinity) Unsurprisingly while most Mormons think the apostasy was well under way before Augustine, many tend to see Augustine as the boogey-man of the apostasy. (Perhaps a tad unfairly) Regardless of who's to blame though, your claim about identity in the Trinity is just wrong.

To the Fall, again while some Christians see the fall as necessary, that's hardly universal. Further saying that the fall was necessary is far too vague unless you explain how it is necessary. So most would say for us to exist as mortals Adam had to fall. However most don't think, like the Book of Mormon does, that it was good for Adam and Eve to fall. So for instance a Calvinist thinks that all that happens is necessary so in that sense the fall is necessary. But that's certainly not the sense Mormons mean it. Mormons mean it in the sense that we'd be happier being fallen than being in the garden. Further Mormons think the fall was necessary to replenish the earth - the command given to Adam and Eve. Not all Christians accept that. The way Mormon thinkers often put it, in opposition to most Christians (especially in 1830s America) was that the fall was fortunate.

Now it's true that some Christians did and do think Adam and Eve couldn't have children until after the fall. Going to the key figure in Western Christianity, Augustine, famously, thinks they did have sex in the garden of eden. (This is actually a big deal in his writings) Further for Augustine in City of God it is clear that God created perfection in Adam and Eve and they lived in a perfect world. Everything is the blame of Adam and Eve. Milton and thus most of post-Milton popular Christianity follows Augustine. (Sex in the garden is also a big deal for Milton) For Mormons and clearly for the Book of Mormon the opposite is true. It's a paradise but far from perfection due to not being able to have children nor being able to have a fulness of joy. So the fall is necessary for Adam and Eve to reach perfection. For Augustine and much of western Christianity the exact opposite is true.

Here's the Trinity taught by Christians during the 1800s

E. Calvin Beisner

God in Three Persons

 

The Christian Church throughout history has found in order to remain faithful to the teachings of the New Testament regarding the person and work of Christ, it had to affirm at least the following doctrines:

The doctrine of the Trinity----that in the nature of the One True God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each fully God, Coequal and Coeternal

When we have said these three things, then—that there is but one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person—we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness.

We may condense this into a somewhat shorter statement, one which is more precise: In the nature  of the God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ( or substance )  of the one true God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit  p 24

 

“The Nicene Creed, then, with centuries of theological discussion and controversy behind it, still teaches of the Trinity as the New Testament does: that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while distinct from each other personally, are the same God”  p 153

 

Trinity

first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

 

(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

 

Homoousios -God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being –Nature [ all Synonyms ]

 

One being. Three persons. In other words, one "what" and three "who"s. There is one being, God. There are three persons: God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The distinction is between being and person. One being, three persons. One what, three who's.

 

All the Persons of the Holy Trinity are IDENTICAL IN ESSENCE  but DISTINCT IN PERSONS

 

  John Ankerberg [Everything You Ever Wanted to know about Mormonism]

Page 104-105

1. There is Only One God

2. The Father is God;

3. Jesus Christ, the Son, is God

4. The Holy Spirit is a Person, is eternal and is therefore God

5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons.

 

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

1.       (n.) The union of three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons as to individuality.

 

 

“Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

(White, James R. “The Forgotten Trinity” (p. 26). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition)

 

Tim tebow's father is a Christian Evangelist and here is his statement on the Trinity

 

We believe God is Trinity, which means that He is one God who has eternally existed in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each one is fully God. God is completely unified in His diversity. All persons of the Trinity are equal , nature, and substance, but they are different in persons. All things are from the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit. Each person of the Godhead shares all the attributes of God, including eternality, freedom, holiness, righteousness, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, happiness, wisdom, sovereignty, perfection, goodness, and justice, grace, and mercy. God is holy, which means that he is transcendent over creation. He is the source of life. Nothing exists apart from His sustaining power. Matthew 28:18–19; Mark 12:29; John 1:14; Acts 5:3–4; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Hebrews 1:1–3; Revelation 1:4–6.

 

 

http://www.btea.org/whatwebelieve.asp

Hank Hanegraaff, The Complete Bible Answer Book—Collector’s Edition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008)

 

While it has become increasingly popular to suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from pagan sources, in reality, this Christian essential is thoroughly biblical. The word “Trinity”—like “incarnation”— is not found in Scripture; however, it aptly codifies what God has condescended to reveal to us about his nature and being. In short, the Trinitarian platform contains three planks: (1) there is but one God; (2) the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; (3) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct.

 

The first plank underscores that there is only one God. Christianity is not polytheistic but fiercely monotheistic. “You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me” (Isaiah 43:10, emphasis added).

 

The second plank emphasizes that in hundreds of Scripture passages the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are declared to be fully and completely God. As a case in point, the apostle Paul says that, “there is but one God the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6). The Father, speaking of the Son, says, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and forever” (Hebrews 1:8). And when Ananias “lied to the Holy Spirit,” Peter points out that he had “not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:3–4).

 

The third plank of the Trinitarian platform asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct. Scripture clearly portrays subject/object relationships between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, the Father and Son love one another, speak to each other (John 17:1–26), and together send the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). Additionally, Jesus proclaims that he and the Father are two distinct witnesses and two distinct judges (John 8:14–18). If Jesus were himself the Father, his argument would have been not only irrelevant but also fatally flawed; and if such were the case, he could not have been fully God.

 

It is important to note that when Trinitarians speak of one God they are referring to the nature or essence of God. Moreover, when they speak of persons they are referring to personal self-distinctions within the Godhead. Put another way, we believe in one What and three Who’s.

 

 

For further study, see James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001).

 

https://i.imgur.com/osAmiy2.jpg

 

 

 

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Israel doesn't but as I'd said Syria does and very close to Israel is a HUGE volcano that's been active since 12,000 BC and just a 150 years ago had lava lakes observable by people with 19th century technology. Here's a map to Al Safa. Note that the volcano field, as you can see, is huge -- thousands of square miles. If you look on the map the distance to Al Safa is about on par with the distance from Nazareth to Jerusalem. The very dark image with the W on it is the active volcano, giving you an idea how huge it is. (As big as the Sea of Galilee) The dark field going to the south east are lava flows. There are 38 further smaller volcanic cones there and to the west of the main volcano. The distance is about 60 miles due east from the Golan Heights or about 80 miles from the Sea of Galilee.

To give you a comparison, that's on par with how far Mt. Rainier National Park is from Seattle. (Rainier being a semi-dormant volcano most are aware of)

Interesting find. More pertinent, though, would be to find a lake of fire in pre-exilic Jewish mythology. And then we’d need to find Thanatos and Hades (or equivalent) being cast into the lake of fire with all of the wicked. And we would need a Satan figure to be cast in with them. All this to occur after the resurrection and judgment, of course. We’d need to find it being described as a second death, find an association with chains, and find a counterpart to the lake of fire that represents a paradise of the righteous.

But of course we won’t find all of those things in pre-exilic Judaism because I’ve just described First Century Christianity. Yet all of these ideas are also found in the Book of Mormon. How do you account for that?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

But of course we won’t find all of those things in pre-exilic Judaism because I’ve just described First Century Christianity. Yet all of these ideas are also found in the Book of Mormon. How do you account for that?

Argument from silence. We have almost no texts from pre-exilic Judaism and the texts we have like Isaiah are heavily edited, added to and redacted.

More significant is Robert's point about extensive ties between Israel and Egypt. Not just due to the legend of Jews coming from Egypt with Moses but more recent connections. While the letters we have from Elephanti are post-exilic (around 400 BC) the settlement appears to date to before the exile. (The letters are about aid rebuilding the temple there) We also know of extensive mixing of Canaanite and Egyptian people and even mixing of gods. 

The main argument is that the notion of an afterlife and hell arise from Persian influence during the exile. There is no doubt though that the Book of Mormon claims, contra most popular scholarship, that the notion of a resurrection and hell was pre-exilic albeit possibly due to heavy influence from Egypt. (Again Robert's point about Nephi's training as a scribe is important) However also note many prominent scholars like Jon Levenson argue for early notions of resurrection. (See his Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel which interesting makes readings very similar to how Nephi reads the "learning of the Jews" - particularly Is 44) Although he mainly (like Nephi) appeals to deutero-Isaiah which many scholars date to after the exile. (I'd argue they might exist in a proto form later edited into Isaiah with the translation merely quoting the later form)

His argument is actually interesting given our discussion a few weeks ago of parallels of Baal and Mot to the Book of Mormon.

Quote

The image of YHWH's disappearing in a metaphorical death, only to return in matrimonial faithfulness, bears some analogy to an important Canaanite cycle of poems, the Ugaritic story of the god Baal.' There, too, a deity dies, as Mot (Death) devours Baal, and there, too, much of the focus lies on the deity's consort, Anat, who proceeds to exact vengeance on his conqueror and effects his resurrection, renewing the fertility of nature. During the intermediate period, riod, between the devouring and the revival, Baal is surely dead in a sense in which YHWH in Second Isaiah is not. The conclusion is inescapable: the exilic prophet of consolation, following in the footsteps of much earlier Israelite literature, prophetic and other, has reinterpreted YHwx's abandonment of Israel to the Babylonians and his subsequent return to his people in the light of pre-Israelite myths of a dying and rising deity. As they come back to life with the providential overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus, so does he return to his grieving widow and remove the shame of her condition. This is not, to be sure, simply an Israelite version of the story of the god altogether defeated by Mot (Death) but revived through his sister's violent intervention. But neither is it a story of a god whose presence and power are always fully activated and fully available, as if the suffering and death of the innocent that his own disappearance ance reflects were unreal.' Israel's God is, in other words a God who is vulnerable, able, as anyone involved in a deeply personal-nay, erotic-relationship is inevitably vulnerable, and the ostensible death of the relationship and of the children are sources of deep pain. Yet this God is at the same time sovereign over all adversity and destined to redeem the people with whom he is eternally in love. Restoration perforce implies that something must genuinely be restored, stored, and the narrative of redemption perforce implies that something must be redeemed, that things are not always in the state celebrated in poems like those of Second Isaiah that we have been examining. The point is not that the fracturing of the relationship is unreal but that it is temporary, not that the death of the offspring is an illusion but that it will in the end be miraculously reversed.

Professor Jon D. Levenson. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (Kindle Locations 2360-2365). Kindle Edition. 

His key point:

Quote

 

Sometimes, however, this distinction of the literal and the metaphorical can lead us astray, causing us to miss the deep interconnections internal to ancient Israelite culture but foreign to us. The sources in the Hebrew Bible, as we have already seen, have a definition of death and of life broader than ours.10 That is why they can see exile, for example, as death and repatriation as life, in a sense that seems contrived (to put it negatively) or artful (to put it positively) to us but probably did not seem so to the original authors and audiences. In part, this is because the ancient Israelites, altogether lacking the corporealist penchant of thought so powerful in modernity, did not conceive of death and life as purely and exclusively biological phenomena." These things were, rather, social in character acter and could not, therefore, be disengaged from the historical fate of the subjects of whom they were predicated. Or, to put it differently, death and life in the Hebrew Bible are often best seen as relational events and are for the selfsame reason inseparable from the personal circumstances of those described scribed as living or as dead.

Professor Jon D. Levenson. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (Kindle Locations 2370-2374). Kindle Edition. 

 

I'm not saying one has to follow Levenson here, despite the similarity of his exegesis method to Nephi's. I'm just saying he's one of the top scholars on the subject at the moment and tends to agree with us. Or more so - the hell bit is a different topic and there he turns primarily to Trito-Isaiah and Daniel which are too late to necessarily help the Book of Mormon. (Is 66:22-24)

I should also add that Levenson sees a tension between this Messianic restoration and "Near Eastern notions of postmortal existence as unrelieved gloom, a fate that none escapes." I should also note that Levenson sees the full developed notion of resurrection as later as well.

Interestingly as a bit of a tangent Levenson's whole argument is that prior to the formal rise of resurrection you have the pre-exilic Sheol which is a damp and dreary place but that the way out is tied to the temple. His example text for this echos Nephi's and Lehi's vision of the tree of life. Ps 36:6-11. He sees this as a combination of Canaanite myth (El's home in the mountains) with the waters coming from the tree of life. This is a kind of return to Eden via a temple. The difference between those at the tree of life and those in the midsts of darkness in the Book of Mormon vision eerily parallels in certain ways Sheol vs. this redemption. Levenson gets a bit speculative theorizing how the temple relates to all this.

Again, very interesting for a secular Jew to be making interpretations that sound so Mormon. (He does that in Creation and the Persistence of Evil too, an other book I recommend)

To the main point though, I suspect the use in the Book of Mormon comes out of the Egyptian tradition - although that may well have been part of the pre-exilic tradition deleted by Deuteronomists and the Priestly tradition during the time of Lehi and in the exile. So I personally follow Robert's interpretation there. My point is just that volcanic activity was hardly alien to the Hebrews. There are tons of volcanos close by. Go to the Black Desert in Egypt and you'll find many more. Go back to 1500 BC and you have the Canaanite group, the Hyksos, ruling in Egypt. So the connections are there. We just don't have any explicit records.

Edited February 1, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Argument from silence. We have almost no texts from pre-exilic Judaism and the texts we have like Isaiah are heavily edited, added to and redacted.

You are not understanding the argument from silence fallacy. It is not a fallacy to point out the absence of specific ideas (in this case, ideas about the afterlife) where you would expect to find them (in the primary religious text of a culture) tends to support the idea the specific ideas are not part of the general beliefs. Now this doesn’t mean my point is unassailable. It could be, as you said, that the text we have doesn’t reflect the text in 600 BC or it could be that Lehi held a minority view that wasn’t reflected in the scriptures. But the absence of these ideas in the OT isn’t the main evidence I’m relying on anyway. It’s their presence in the NT that make them so unlikely to have been present some 700 years earlier, even as a minority view… because in the intervening centuries you have a diaspora followed by influence from Persian and Greek religions that is identifiable in the NT, add to that the internal influences tending to shift ideas within Judaism itself, followed by a radical apostate cult developing its own unique teachings which are also identifiable in the NT. You end up with something that is almost certainly different then any cohesive set of ideas that existed seven centuries earlier. I just don’t see how this is not perfectly obvious to a neutral observer. 

[clarkgoble]

My argument is that we don't really have enough texts to say with much confidence what pre-exilic Israel believed especially given we know there was rapid change due to Josiah's reforms. Likewise we don't know to what degree the northern Kingdom and southern Kingdom differed in theology. This in turn means that there's a certain vicious circularity to arguments. Once you buy for instance that resurrection is due to Persian influence and rapid change of theology then any text that hints at resurrection is determined to be post-exilic regardless of surrounding text. So in a certain sense it becomes unfalsifiable. Without texts that can unambiguously be dated to before the exile we really don't know what they believed. 

So the argument from silence is due to only having very late texts (most date to the Roman period or later) to which are applied source criticism that converge upon a given model due to the nature of the hermeneutic circle. But that's ultimately an argument from silence. It might well be the best explanation given the data, but the data is so problematic I think we have to be cautious. Ultimately the issue is how much influence Egypt had on pre-exilic Israel versus parallels with Canaanite belief.

But I completely understand those who, looking at scholarly consensus, see the Book of Mormon as a problem. My argument is just that the grounds for the consensus is less than it appears at first glance. Those, like Robert, positing more Egyptian influence have I think at least a reasonable argument. Even if it isn't perhaps the best explanation in terms of the public data scholars are willing to accept. However if there's a certain circularity with regards to Persian influence, the same type of logic might apply to the Book of Mormon making Egyptian influence more likely. Once you accept that, then that changes the nature of the arguments quite a bit.

Edited February 1, 2018 by clarkgoble