Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by moksha » Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:20 am

Here is an interesting post from JarMan on another board:
----------

In this article, the author asserts that the Old Testament does not contain the character of Satan (or the devil) as we understand it and that the ancient Israelites did not even have a concept of Satan until the second century BC or later. In the Book of Mormon Satan plays a prominent role and appears as early as 1Nephi 12 in Nephi's vision. The question is how to resolve this apparent discrepancy. Why does the Book of Mormon present a view of Satan among the Nephites that seems anachronistic to ancient Israel?

This apparent anachronism is magnified in various places in the Book of Mormon, particularly 2Nephi 2, where it presents a Miltonian view of Satan that may not have even existed until the 17th Century. I'll quote from a Wikipedia article about the devil in Christianity with the proviso that the Wikipedia article does not provide a source for its assertion.
Until John Milton created the character of Satan for his Paradise Lost, the different attributes of Satan were usually ascribed to different entities. The angel who rebelled in Heaven was not the same as the ruler of Hell. The ruler of Hell was often seen as a sort of jailer who never fell from grace. The tempting serpent of Genesis was just a serpent. Milton combined the different parts of the character to show his fall from near-divine beauty and grace to his eventual skulking role as a jealous tempter. He was so successful in his characterization of Satan as a romantic hero who "would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven" that his version of Satan has displaced all others.
2Nephi 2 clearly shows Satan in all three roles: as the angel who rebelled in heaven (verses 17 and 18), as the serpent in the Garden of Eden (verse 18), and as the ruler of hell (verse 29). If the Wikipedia article is correct that these separate roles were not combined into a single character until the 17th Century, how do we explain its existence in the Book of Mormon? Or, if we are contemplating an early modern composition for the Book of Mormon, does the appearance of this Miltonian concept set a lower temporal boundary on its production?

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... ame-satan/

What sayest thou gentle people? Did John Milton appeareth unto the Nephites?
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
Corsair
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Phoenix

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by Corsair » Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:58 am

Satan makes an appearance early in the book of Job, but he has a very different character. He's the "Devil's Advocate" and it's like he's making a bar bet with God. The authorship of the Book of Job is probably an Israelite between the 7th and 4th centuries BC.

But the character of Satan in Job is quite different from the handsome fallen angel in Milton's Paradise Lost or the demonic video game character in Dante's Inferno. The "jerk accountant" Satan of the Book of Job is almost a guy you might meet for drinks. He would be a much more entertaining character if he showed up as such in the Book of Mormon.

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by Jeffret » Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:23 pm

Yes, the Mormon Satan is anachronistic. In many ways. The BoM Satanology doesn't really fit with any ideas that existed during the time period the BoM was supposedly written. Especially not from an off-shoot that left Jerusalem well before the common era. Even more problematic for the BoM's Satanology is that it doesn't change over the 1000+ year history the book supposedly covers. The understanding of Satan is consistent throughout. If you compare it to anything similar where we have historical data along the way, you'll see changes over time as dramatically different understandings emerge and become popular or fall out of favor.

There is a similar problem, on a larger scale, with the BoM's Christology. It presents understandings of Christ, his life, and his role that simply didn't exist at the time it was supposedly written. But, more problematic is that its Christology is remarkably consistent over its 1000+ year "history". In real life, we see lots of different Christologies over time and place. Sometimes Christ's humanity has been prevalent -- sometimes his godliness. Sometimes he is portrayed as lord and king -- sometimes as loving guide and teacher. In the BoM, the Christology is remarkably consistent over time and place. It is much more consistent than the Mormon Church has been over its relatively short history. The modern Church has largely discarded and ignored the Christology of the BoM.

The problems with the BoM are many. It is inconsistent with reality and at times with itself. But, it is also far too consistent with itself in places where it really shouldn't be.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
1smartdodog
Posts: 510
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:51 pm

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by 1smartdodog » Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:02 pm

The easy answer is that is why a restoration was needed to set things straight again.

I however gave up long ago trying to hold the BOM to any kind of historical accuracy or standard. It is fiction so it can say whatever it wants.
“Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”
― Thomas A. Edison

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 7075
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by Hagoth » Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:41 pm

The consistency issue is a problem for every aspect of the BoM. The Jaredites we're at the peak of technology with steel swords long before their place of origin had even achieved the Iron Age. Over the next 2500 years there were no advances in technology, science or society.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
oliver_denom
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:09 pm

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by oliver_denom » Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:35 pm

Corsair wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:58 am
Satan makes an appearance early in the book of Job, but he has a very different character. He's the "Devil's Advocate" and it's like he's making a bar bet with God. The authorship of the Book of Job is probably an Israelite between the 7th and 4th centuries BC.

But the character of Satan in Job is quite different from the handsome fallen angel in Milton's Paradise Lost or the demonic video game character in Dante's Inferno. The "jerk accountant" Satan of the Book of Job is almost a guy you might meet for drinks. He would be a much more entertaining character if he showed up as such in the Book of Mormon.
In Job, Satan was in heaven and a part of a heavenly council of gods. It's missing in the King James translation, but he's actually referred to as "the satan" or "the accuser" which implies this is more of a title than a name. The satan in Job is more of a prosecuting attorney and definitely not the ultimate source of all evil.

The depiction of the devil in Mormonism is so over the top ridiculous, I stopped believing him him before I questioned any other part of the faith in any significant way. I just took him as some sort of boogeyman.
“You want to know something? We are still in the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages--they haven't ended yet.” - Vonnegut

L'enfer, c'est les autres - JP

dogbite
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 1:28 pm
Location: SLC

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by dogbite » Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:56 pm

From with inside Mormonism, Satan is consistent. But Mormonism makes certain unsupportable assumptions in order for that consistency to hold.

From an anthropological and historical view, Mormon Satan is inconsistent and anachronistic.

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by Jeffret » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:11 pm

dogbite wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:56 pm
From with inside Mormonism, Satan is consistent.
I challenge that claim.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

dogbite
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 1:28 pm
Location: SLC

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by dogbite » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:50 pm

Your challenge is probably included in one or more of the base assumptions.

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by Jeffret » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:44 pm

dogbite wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:50 pm
Your challenge is probably included in one or more of the base assumptions.
It's possible, particularly as I don't know all of the base assumptions.

One that always seemed inconsistent, even back when I was a believer is D&C 129:
4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.

5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.

6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—

7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.

8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.
If the devil is canny enough to appear as an angel of light, why doesn't he just decline to move? Somehow he's smart enough to figure out the difficult part but when it comes to the easy part of just not moving, he can't manage it.


It seems like the great weakness in the Plan centers around Satan. Supposedly he has the greatest degree of cunning and craftiness, yet he can't figure out what the computer, Joshua, understood in "Wargames", "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." If everyone has free agency, or even moral agency as the Church now wants to present it, does Lucifer, the Son of the Morning, have free agency? Can he choose not to offer his hand? Once his proffered plan was rejected, could he just decline to play the expected part? Couldn't Lucifer Morningstar decide to just open a night club in Los Angeles and solve murder mysteries on the side instead of playing the assigned role? It seems like Satan has the ability to frustrate the entire plan, by just not playing along. If he decides to stop providing opposition in all things, "righteousness could not be brought to pass".


Joseph's attempt to redefine "eternal punishment" in D&C 19 doesn't really work. Joseph tried to resolve the inconsistencies, to find a way out of the conundrum in which he found himself, but it just creates other problems. At a minimum, it creates inconsistencies regarding the role and nature of Satan.


In his video clips, Mr. Diety plays around with some of the other inconsistencies regarding Satan in Mormon or Christian theology, when he includes interactions with Lucy. A running gag portrays Mr. Diety as somewhat of bumbling idiot while Lucy always knows just what is going on and has her kingdom under control. While exaggerated for comedic effect, these are consistent with certain aspects of Mormon Satanology.


I'm sure there are more examples, but I don't keep fresh on Mormon doctrine. It's possible to describe these as at odds with the base assumptions. Certainly the most significant base assumption in Mormonism is that everything church leaders say is true, important, and meaningful. The other major base assumption is that whatever inconsistencies might exist can be classified as mysteries -- we don't need to worry about them now but they'll all make sense in the hereafter.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 3629
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by wtfluff » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:56 am

Jeffret wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:11 pm
dogbite wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:56 pm
From with inside Mormonism, Satan is consistent.
I challenge that claim.
How 'bout: From within mormonism, satan is consistently inconsistent. (Just like the rest of mormonism.)
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

IDKSAF -RubinHighlander

You can surrender without a prayer...

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by Jeffret » Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:09 am

wtfluff wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:56 am
How 'bout: From within mormonism, satan is consistently inconsistent. (Just like the rest of mormonism.)
That'll work.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by moksha » Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:08 pm

oliver_denom wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:35 pm
In Job, Satan was in heaven and a part of a heavenly council of gods. It's missing in the King James translation, but he's actually referred to as "the satan" or "the accuser" which implies this is more of a title than a name. The satan in Job is more of a prosecuting attorney and definitely not the ultimate source of all evil.
This description of "the accuser" has consistency because the ancient Israelite legal proceedings always had someone acting in the role of "the accuser".
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 7075
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by Hagoth » Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:41 pm

[/quote]
8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.[/quote]
I remember totally stumping my Deacons quorum advisors when they taught this lesson. All I said was "how do you know Satan isn't listening right now. If he's so smart he should have figured it out by now, considering how much we talk about it."
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is within you." The Buddha: "Be your own light."

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by Rob4Hope » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:56 pm

I always understood the hand shaking thing as Satan not having a choice--he was so compelled to try to deceive that he would do it anyway possible. But then I got out of the Sunbeam's class and moved to Star A. It stopped being that easy to understand.

AND,...now that I am older, I have to say Lucifer Morningstar has the coolest bar there is. And, he certainly knows how to work with the psychiatric profession. But if I were him, I wouldn't want them wings back either.

User avatar
Dravin
Posts: 402
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:04 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by Dravin » Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:03 pm

Rob4Hope wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:56 pm
I always understood the hand shaking thing as Satan not having a choice--he was so compelled to try to deceive that he would do it anyway possible. But then I got out of the Sunbeam's class and moved to Star A. It stopped being that easy to understand.
What's funny about the idea that he has to deceive is you can just ask him if he's a teapot. The angel that says, "Yes." is Satan. :)
Hindsight is all well and good... until you trip.

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by Rob4Hope » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:37 am

Dravin wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:03 pm
Rob4Hope wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:56 pm
I always understood the hand shaking thing as Satan not having a choice--he was so compelled to try to deceive that he would do it anyway possible. But then I got out of the Sunbeam's class and moved to Star A. It stopped being that easy to understand.
What's funny about the idea that he has to deceive is you can just ask him if he's a teapot. The angel that says, "Yes." is Satan. :)
The contradiction that this individual [satan] is the most cunning deceiver EVER, and that he [it?] is so stupid he will allow himself to be detected in such a rudimentary stupid fashion, is ridiculous.

I don't understand how to accept this. The revelation of JS in this regard is absolutely insulting! It treats people [read LDS members] as ignorant children without half a brain. I find this condescending attitude truly irritating. Bednar is good at this--being a condescending pr!ck. That is why he pisses me off so much.

User avatar
Dravin
Posts: 402
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:04 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by Dravin » Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:34 am

Rob4Hope wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:37 am
The contradiction that this individual [satan] is the most cunning deceiver EVER, and that he [it?] is so stupid he will allow himself to be detected in such a rudimentary stupid fashion, is ridiculous.
Consider that D&C 129 is contemporaneous with Joseph's initiating people into the Nauvoo Endowment where we see secret handshakes being used to test messengers. In that context is makes more sense, it is still ridiculous that handshakes are being used, secret or not, but within the historical context (or more accurately my limited understanding of the historical context) it reads like Endowment teachings leaking out and becoming part of the open canon. It is also a great way to make the initiated feel extra special, those who have been inducted now posses esoteric knowledge, that it's not just normal handshakes he's talking about but the super secret ones they've been taught as part of the endowment.

Read D&C 129 and replace 'shake hands' with 'demonstrate the tokens of the priesthood' and it dovetails rather nicely with the Endowment. Though maybe I'm putting an unjustified spin on things, anyone who knows the historical context better is welcome to school me.
Hindsight is all well and good... until you trip.

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by Rob4Hope » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Dravin wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:34 am
Rob4Hope wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:37 am
The contradiction that this individual [satan] is the most cunning deceiver EVER, and that he [it?] is so stupid he will allow himself to be detected in such a rudimentary stupid fashion, is ridiculous.
Consider that D&C 129 is contemporaneous with Joseph's initiating people into the Nauvoo Endowment where we see secret handshakes being used to test messengers. In that context is makes more sense, it is still ridiculous that handshakes are being used, secret or not, but within the historical context (or more accurately my limited understanding of the historical context) it reads like Endowment teachings leaking out and becoming part of the open canon. It is also a great way to make the initiated feel extra special, those who have been inducted now posses esoteric knowledge, that it's not just normal handshakes he's talking about but the super secret ones they've been taught as part of the endowment.

Read D&C 129 and replace 'shake hands' with 'demonstrate the tokens of the priesthood' and it dovetails rather nicely with the Endowment. Though maybe I'm putting an unjustified spin on things, anyone who knows the historical context better is welcome to school me.
Very interesting "dovetail" I confess. I to would like to know if any historical context or text changes are part of this section...

User avatar
alas
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Is Mormon Satan anachronistic?

Post by alas » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:29 pm

Dravin wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:34 am
Rob4Hope wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:37 am
The contradiction that this individual [satan] is the most cunning deceiver EVER, and that he [it?] is so stupid he will allow himself to be detected in such a rudimentary stupid fashion, is ridiculous.
Consider that D&C 129 is contemporaneous with Joseph's initiating people into the Nauvoo Endowment where we see secret handshakes being used to test messengers. In that context is makes more sense, it is still ridiculous that handshakes are being used, secret or not, but within the historical context (or more accurately my limited understanding of the historical context) it reads like Endowment teachings leaking out and becoming part of the open canon. It is also a great way to make the initiated feel extra special, those who have been inducted now posses esoteric knowledge, that it's not just normal handshakes he's talking about but the super secret ones they've been taught as part of the endowment.

Read D&C 129 and replace 'shake hands' with 'demonstrate the tokens of the priesthood' and it dovetails rather nicely with the Endowment. Though maybe I'm putting an unjustified spin on things, anyone who knows the historical context better is welcome to school me.
I have wondered if this was what kind of handshake JS was talking about. So I would also be interested in the context of this.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests