Was the Devil ever in hell?

Great Debates
61

jab1 wrote:

He actually claimed to have translated it from the golden plates, not the original Isaiah.

Hey, Joseph Smith also used the word “Adieu” in the Book of Mormon, which is plainly French in origin. When you’re translating, you do the translation into your own language, not someone else’s. “Adieu” apparently was the word that meant “Farewell” in Joseph Smith’s vernacular, so that’s the word he used. Same with “Lucifer”–he translated the word into a name that everyone would recognize.

Note: this is just my personal interpretation, not necessarily LDS doctrine.

62

As the article makes clear, “Lucifer” is not another name for Satan, as is commonly believed, but the Latin name for the planet Venus. And Isaiah was referring to a Babylonian king. It makes no difference if Smith translated from golden plates or parchment or from graffiti. If he thought Lucifer was a name for the Devil, he was wrong. If he knew it was not the Devil’s other name, he should have said so instead of spreading a falsehood. Isn’t that false witnessing?

So what language was on those golden plates? Did anyone see them other than Joseph Smith? If not, how do you know they even existed? If you say “Faith,” I’m gonna scream.

So, was the Devil ever in Hell?

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

63

jab1 wrote:

The Bible seems to indicate clearly that “Lucifer” and “Satan” are one and the same, although the name “Lucifer” only appears once in it. However, if you compare Isaiah 14:12 ("How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . .) to Luke 10:18 (". . . I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.") So if Joseph Smith was “bearing false witness,” you have to accuse Jesus of doing the same.

The article you cited contained, in the Mormon apologetic’s response, a possible “dual” nature of the verse in Isaiah, meaning both the Babylonian king AND Satan. I don’t know enough about this issue to be very helpful, to tell you the truth, but it seems plausible to me that Isaiah was speaking about both.

It was a language called “Reformed Egyptian,” according to Mormon 9:32-33 in the BoM. The prophet Mormon says that they would have been written in Hebrew if the plates had been large enough, so apparently “reformed Egyptian” was very economical in terms of space.

Yes. There were three who saw them, and eight who saw and “hefted” them physically (see “The Testimony of Three Witnesses” and “The Testimony of Eight Witnesses” at the beginning of the Book of Mormon).

I have read the Book of Mormon several times from beginning to end and studied many of the doctrines in it. The first time I read it was when I was about 8 or 9 years old, and, following the instructions of Moroni 10:3-5 near the end of the Book of Mormon, I asked God in prayer if it was true. God bare witness to its truthfulness in my heart, in a way I can’t really describe in words, but that was unmistakeable. Ever since then I’ve known that the BoM is true. No one can ever take that testimony against me. Even through my rebellious teens and twenties, I never lost that testimony, and I bear it to you now: I know that the Book of Mormon is true, and therefore that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and the church he founded is truly the church of Jesus Christ.

64

I mean, of course, “No one can ever take that testimony away from me,” not “against me.”

65

AAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

66

Snark, the reason jab is screaming is that he just finished explaining that Isaiah never used the word ‘Lucifer’, and that name wasn’t in the Scriptures available when Jesus was on earth. The use of ‘Lucifer,’ according to jab’s explanation, originated with Jerome. So the Bible can’t be saying Lucifer and anything are the same, because ‘Lucifer’ wasn’t really in the Bible.

btw, BCE Christianity in Eurasia doesn’t seem to have any supporting evidence, outside the Mormon scriptures. So when you bring that into a somewhat historical discussion (Mithraism’s influence on Christianity, in this case), I’m going to point that out, just the way I point it out when the Leftbehinders use Genesis as evidence against evolution, an old earth, etc. I’m not trying to slam your faith; however, when one puts one’s faith forward as evidence in some other field (history, science, etc.), it’s generally a bad idea, and the one doing so generally interprets the criticism as an attack on his faith. I just want to make sure you know what you’re getting into.

67

RTFirefly, here is what my Bible Dictionary says about “Lucifer”:

Frankly, if I have the choice of believing jab1 versus believing my faith’s scriptures, I’ll believe the latter.

68

RTFirefly wrote:

That’s like saying, “The evidence for Jesus’s existence doesn’t have any supporting evidence, outside of the evidence for Jesus’s existence.” The Mormon scriptures are the very supporting evidence that you’re ignoring.

69

Sorry, that was poorly phrased, but I hope you get what I was trying to say: you’re ignoring the evidence and then saying that there isn’t any evidence.

70

Snark, I’d be surprised if you gave up your Mormon faith because of something I said. My powers of persuasion are not that great. :slight_smile: In fact, I’d be disappointed if you were that easily swayed.

I’d like further clarification on a couple of things:

  1. What does “Reformed Egyptian” look like? I assume it’s what they use in Egypt now?

When you “equate” two or more things, you are not saying they are the same thing, you’re saying they are similar, but separate, entities. Is it possible your dictionary is in error?

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

71

One more thing, and I’ll wait for Snark’s reply, though it has to be by Sunday afternoon. After that, I’ll be off-line for two weeks or more.

Snark said he read the Mormon Apology at http://exmormon.org/boards/honestboard/messages/23.html

Did you read the reply to the apology at http://exmormon.org/boards/honestboard/messages/24.html ?

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

72

Jab, sorry to do this to you in the middle of a conversation, but please read the GD thread called “Excessive Mormonism Posts.” My lips are sealed for at least a month on all topics relating to Mormonism on this board. There are maybe other Mormons on this board who can answer your questions, I hope.

73

:o Okay, this is the last thing: Is it possible that Isaiah 14:12 is referring to Nebuchadnezzar? Yes, I know there is a great compliment to King Neb in Daniel 1:1. But maybe it was an apology for that insult in Isaiah? Were those books written in the same order in which they appear in the Bible?

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

74

To jab: No, they were not written in the same order. They appear in this order because, in the pre-Christian Septuagint, the books (including the Apocrypha) were arranged thus:
Historic: Genesis through Esther.
Poetic: Job through Song of Solomon.
*Prophetic: Isaiah through Malachi. (The longer prophetic books come first, in order; then Daniel; then the twelve “Minor Prophets,” for some reason arranged chronologically–in three groups of four. (Malachi was the last, about 440 B.C.) In Jewish books of Scripture, the arrangement is the Pentateuch; the Prophets (including most of the books categorized above as historical); and the Hagiographa or “Psalms” or “Writings,” all the rest, including Daniel and Esther.

75

Snark,

I realize you will not post about Mormonism, but you may still post about philosophy, debate issues and procedures, rules of evidence, etc. So feel free…

I believe you confuse evidence with claim. The fact that The BoM exists is not evidence of what it contains, and is not proof of BCE Christianity in Eurasia or anywhere - not any more than the existence of Tolkien’s LotR is proof of the existence of elves. I realize you may take exception to that analogy, but please go with the philosophical point: existing historical documentation of a given era is evidence; sufficient evidence is usually called proof; claims that postdate a historical period and for which no corroboration exists can at best be called theses. Belief is not evidence or proof; it is just belief. When no available evidence supports a belief, it is indistinguishable from fantasy (but of course, a given belief could still be supported in future by discovery of new evidence).

The witnesses to the existence of the golden plates are evidence that some individuals were willing to swear they saw some plates (I assume there is some historical evidence for the existence of those individuals at that place at that time, and no reason to suspect forgery). The fact that some individuals were willing to swear they saw some plates has no bearing on what another individual claimed was on the plates or on what really happened in BCE Eurasia.

76

Snark, I realize you’ve taken a month off, but I figured I’d reply now anyway:

(1) On Lucifer: thanks for the clarification. To non-LDS Christians, there’s a distinct difference between the Bible and the BoM.

(2) On evidence for BCE Christianity in Eurasia: the Biblical scriptures count as historical evidence in a way that the BoM doesn’t. The most ancient copies we have of the BoM date from the early 19th century. While it may describe events that it claims happened at or before the time of Christ, it neither dates from the period described, nor does it represent a link in a chain of continuous transmission of the information contained in the BoM.

In contrast, the earliest extant copies of the New Testament date back to within a few centuries of the time they describe, and documents of the intervening period enable us to verify the existence of various NT books at dates well before the dates of our copies.

And while the Masoretic Text of the OT is largely from the 9th century AD, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls corroborate the earlier existence of the OT, as do references to parts of the OT in other sources from antiquity. And there are historical reasons to presume that much of the OT was passed down in oral form for some time before being committed to writing.

Hence the Bible is evidence in a manner that the BoM is not. That doesn’t mean historians should take it literally, and most don’t: for instance, many historians are skeptical as to whether the Hebrews were ever in Egypt, or whether the kingdoms of David and Solomon were anywhere near as substantial as the Bible suggests.

So this is what I mean. There is evidence that the faith we now call Judaism was practiced for centuries before Christ. There is evidence that Christianity was practiced from the middle of the first century AD until now. But there is no evidence of BCE Christianity either existing or influencing Mithraism, period.

This is not dumping on your faith; that you believe in the divine origins of the BoM is fine with me, and seems to work for you. But that’s belief, not evidence - except to another Mormon. Just as the Bible is evidence of the bodily resurection of Christ only to another Christian.

77

I have to mention this: Parallelism is not identity.
If Clemy says, “I heard the Kingfish slipped on a banana peel, and everyone laughed.”–and Leroy says, “I saw W.C. Fields slip on a banana peel in a picture show.”–that does not mean that the Kingfish is W.C. Fields. There is nothing here to indicate that Lucifer=Satan.

(The next few paragraphs may seem familiar; they’re a slightly different version–a synoptic post?–of what I posted on
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=26993
“Lucifer… or Satan?”)
Christian “Satanology” (so to speak) tends to run as follows: The Devil (whose name is Satan) is a fallen angel who has stepped into a game try at an Ahriman (god of evil) role–of course, he’s not a God, so he’s doomed, but he has dominion over the souls of the dead, and first tempts them (in life) then torments them (in Hell). Some (Milton in Paradise Lost? also say that he was bound in Hell, but the more normal view is that he is on Earth until the “end time” when he will be cast into Tartarus–er, Gehenna/Hell–along with the rest of us unwashed sperm-babies–er “sinners.”

I don’t buy it. Satan in the Book of Job is not portrayed explicitly as enemy to God, nor as a advocate of sin. While this is one interpretation, another is that he is merely a being cynical about the righteousnesss of man–a kind of “enemy” of man, perhaps, but not necessarily an enemy of God. This is at odds with the view in some forms of Satanism (& certain trashy Hollywood movies) which claims that Satan is in favor of liberty–and on your side against an oppressive and punishing God. If Satan has charge of punishing the evil in Hell, then he is the one who punishes.
The Mormon view, I was told by a LDS friend, is almost opposite that of the Satanist: Satan/Lucifer is a legalist, Jesus/Christ/Jehovah a libertarian. I am certainly not LDS, but I find in this something a little like my own view, that Satan is not the advocate of evil, but its harshest critic–a very different view, to be sure, and one that utterly rejects the Revelation to John.
Also, in answer to another question, Isaiah’s book was written before Daniel’s. Isaiah’s visions are from a period ending in the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah. Daniel’s from the Babylonian captivity, a century or so later.

78

Oh! It did. Just this week (yes, before reading this column), it occurred to me.

Mithraism was a religion of the military leaders of Rome. Christianity was a widespread movement in the Empire. Constantine was a warrior, trying to conquer Rome (nice, easy succession not being the order of the day). He famously saw a vision in the daylight sky (in the sun?) with a cross, and the instructions “hoc signo victor eris” (“by this sign you will be victor”).
Constantine took up the sign of the cross, became Caesar, and instituted Christianity as the state religion of Rome. Yet he himself was not baptised until near his death. Why? Well, Christianity was a holier-than-thou kind of religion, with that “love your enemies” injunction, & Constantine had political concerns which required violence. Rather than be baptised into hypocrisy, he put it off. Or, in life, he was still a blood-&-guts Mithraist?
But that vision–I was thinking it was in the sun, but maybe not. But if it was–let’s say, for the sake of argument, Mithra actually existed, as a god. Could he have directed one of his faithful to take up the sign of this other religion and make the state religion a sort of masked Mithraism?

Um, well, actually, once I started to write this post, I had to check some facts. Constantine did revere a sun god prior to his battlefield conversion, but it was Apollo. He also sacrificed to Mars.
Maybe “Mithra Lives” won’t work without resorting to an appeal to Roman-style syncretism. Mithra is the sun god; Apollo is the sun god; same thing.

Oh, well, this was spooky fun before I checked the facts.

79

Satan in Hell does not occur until Rev12:9., prob written in AD95.

80

coffeecat said:

Well, Bruce, I thought that helpful post was wicked hilarious; but apparently everybody else is more interested in having a serious discussion of demonology and Mithraism than in reading dirty stories. :slight_smile:

Kimstu