88 replies to this topic

[David Bokovoy]

In recent years, textual and archeological discoveries have had a significant impact upon our contemporary understanding of the Bible.  One of these important discoveries includes the essential administrative role fulfilled by the divine council.  

Unlike many contemporary religious traditions influenced by the later post-biblical view of radical monotheism, biblical Israel believed in a council of gods who governed the affairs of the universe.  

The concept of a divine council of gods is, in fact, so central to the biblical world view that non-LDS scholar Patrick D. Miller has referred to this council as �?¢â?¬�??a fundamental symbol for the Old Testament understanding of how the government of human society by the divine world is carried out.�?¢â?¬�?; see Patrick D. Miller, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 432.

The scholarly understanding of this fundamental biblical symbol has influenced the way in which recent Bible translations have rendered a number of texts including Deuteronomy 32:8.  

The earliest Hebrew manuscript for this passage refers to the gods of the heavenly council, hence, the translators of the New Revised Standard Version render the verse as �?¢â?¬�??when the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods�?¢â?¬�? (Deut. 32:8; NRSV).  

A few of the primary Hebrew words associated with the heavenly council in the Old Testament include s�??�?´d �?¢â?¬�??council�?¢â?¬�? (Jer 18: 22; 23:18; Job 15:8;  Ps 25:14), m�??�?´�?¢â?¬�??ēd �?¢â?¬�??meeting, assembly�?¢â?¬�? (Isaiah 14:13), �?¢â?¬�??ēd�??�?¢ �?¢â?¬�??congregation�?¢â?¬�? (Ps 82:1),  qedoshim �?¢â?¬�??the Holy Ones�?¢â?¬�?  (Ps 89:5; Zech 14:5; Job 5),  saba�?¢â?¬â?¢ �?¢â?¬�??host�?¢â?¬�? (Gen 2:1; Deut 4:19; 1 Kin 22:19; Ps 103:21; 148:2), beney elim/ beney (ha)elohim �?¢â?¬�??sons of God�?¢â?¬�? (Ps 29:1; 89:6/ Gen 6:1-2; Job 1:6), elohim �?¢â?¬�??gods�?¢â?¬�? (Ps 82:1; 86:8; 95:3,4; 97:7,9; 135:5; 136:2; 138:1), and elim �?¢â?¬�??gods�?¢â?¬�?  (Ex 15:11; Ps 58:1).  

According to the Psalmist, the Lord is �?¢â?¬�??a God dreaded in the council of holy beings�?¢â?¬�? (89: .  �?¢â?¬�??The members of this sod [i.e. council] around Yahweh,�?¢â?¬�? notes non-LDS Bible scholar H.-J Fabry, �?¢â?¬�??are kept clearly on the terminological periphery, and finally their designation as qedosim [i.e. holy ones] even opens up the possibility that human beings also belong to this council (c.f. Job 15:8; Ps. 89:8[7]), though this involves primarily the prophets (1 K. 22:19-22;Isa.6;40:1-8;Jer.23:18,22;Am.3:7)�?¢â?¬�?; see H.-J. Fabry, �?¢â?¬�??sod,�?¢â?¬�? The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry eds. (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004): 174.

Hence, biblical authors not only believed that the universe was governed by a divine council of deities, they openly professed that human beings could become actual members of this council.  

It stands to reason therefore that much like Latter-day Saints, biblical authors believed that humans could become gods.  

�?¢â?¬�??The council of YHWH is for those who fear him,�?¢â?¬�? declares the Psalmist, �?¢â?¬�??to them he makes known his covenant�?¢â?¬�? (Psalm 25:14).  

Since those who fear Yahweh become members of his divine council of deities, it seems clear that the Latter-day Saint theology regarding human deification is much more congruent with biblical theology than our critics would have us believe.

[Uncle Dale]

[double posting]

Edited by Uncle Dale, 06 September 2006 - 09:16 AM.

[David Bokovoy]

Quote

Of course the veracity of your statement depends very much upon what we mean by "biblical Israel." If you are speaking of the era of the Davidic monarchy and before, you'll find me generally agreeing.

I believe that this view is one of the few theological tenets that appears consistently throughout the history of biblical thought.

Many texts from the Bible support the theomorphic view of humanity.  The Bible open up by presenting the first man as a deified member of the council.

The story of Eden states that the Lord took advantage of the wet-clay-like soil and �?¢â?¬�??formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul�?¢â?¬�? (Gen 2:7).  

In an important study concerning this imagery, Walter Bruggemann has illustrated that a biblical connection exists between being raised from the dust and enthronement.

�?¢â?¬�??To be taken �?¢â?¬�??from the dust�?¢â?¬â?¢ means to be elevated from obscurity to royal office and to return to dust means to be deprived of that office and returned to obscurity�?¢â?¬�?; see Walter Brueggemann, �?¢â?¬�??From Dust to Kingship,�?¢â?¬�? Zeitschrift Fur Dei Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84 (1972): 1-18.  

Hence, the notion of the divine gardener raising man �?¢â?¬�??from the dust of the earth�?¢â?¬�? in Genesis 2:7 suggests that Yahweh begins his creative activity by forming a divine king.  

God�?¢â?¬â?¢s initial creative act in Genesis 2 must be the creation of man, for as a divine king raised �?¢â?¬�??from the dust,�?¢â?¬�? man was formed to assist deity in the creation process.  In Genesis 2, God appears as a gardener who causes to grow �?¢â?¬�??every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food�?¢â?¬�? (Gen. 2: 9); for additional examples of Yahweh portrayed in the role of gardener see Num 24:6; Ps 104:16; Is 44:14.

The biblical account declares that the Lord placed the man in the garden to �?¢â?¬�??dress�?¢â?¬�? and �?¢â?¬�??keep�?¢â?¬�? his newly created oasis (Gen 2:15).  As a gardener, the Lord plants Eden; as a gardener, the Lord mixes the soil to form both man and beast.  As a gardener, the Lord creates man in his image to perform the work of a God.  Man will assume the role of divine gardener.

From an ancient Near Eastern perspective, the view of Adam as divine gardener suggests that biblical authors viewed humanity as an earthly extension of the divine council.  According to the Eden account, man was immortal (Gen 2:17); man had received from deity the sacred �?¢â?¬�??breath of life�?¢â?¬�? (Gen 2:7);  man had been commissioned to perform the work of a god, i.e. to till and tend the divine garden.  As an immortal gardener, man was already �?¢â?¬�??like the gods�?¢â?¬�? prior to partaking of the forbidden fruit.  

In Mesopotamian myths, for example, the work of gardening was assigned to lesser members of the divine council.  Hence, the story of Atrahasis opens with the following portrayal:

"When gods were man
They did forced labor, they bore drudgery.
Great indeed was the drudgery of the gods,
The forced labor was heavy, the misery too much
The seven (?) great Anunna-gods were burdening
The Igigi-gods with forced labor;" (Atr. I 1-6.  translation of B. Foster, Before the Muses, 1.159).

The lesser gods of the divine council were gardeners who did the laborious task of carrying for the canals, trees, and water ways that sustained the higher gods of the assembly.  Adam, as an immortal being, clearly assumes the position of the Igigi in biblical thought.  The questions presented to Job by Eliphaz concerning the primal human seem to reflect this notion:

Were you born the first human?
Were you brought forth before the hills?
Do you listen in the council of Eloah? (Job 15:7-.

As Dexter Callender has observed regarding these questions, �?¢â?¬�??the allusion to the primal human in Job does not give us explicit details concerning his incorporation into the sacred world; it is clear, however, that the idea is present in the reference that the primal human, �?¢â?¬�??listened�?¢â?¬â?¢ in the council of God�?¢â?¬�?; see Dexter E. Callender, Jr.  Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, 2000): 212.

As an inclusive member of God�?¢â?¬â?¢s council, man held a stewardship to �?¢â?¬�??dress�?¢â?¬�? and �?¢â?¬�??keep�?¢â?¬�? the deity�?¢â?¬â?¢s garden (Genesis 2:15).  When the man and woman eat from the tree of knowledge, God expels the humans from Eden and assigns the cherubim, another traditional member of the divine council, to �?¢â?¬�??keep�?¢â?¬�? the garden (Genesis 3:24).  

This move suggests that �?¢â?¬�??keeping�?¢â?¬�? the garden is a task reserved for members of the heavenly host.  However, as an immortal subordinate assigned an important council task, man appears in the Genesis account as a being very much like the council deities mentioned in Psalm 82 who receive the decree of death:

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.  But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes" (Psalm 82:6).

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen 2:17).

Edited by David Bokovoy, 06 September 2006 - 06:32 AM.

[Neighbor]

There are two primary issues that other Christians have with the LDS view of this issue:

1.  That there is but one God, and all the host of heaven agree, as is witnessed by the angel to John in Revelation exclaiming that only God is to be worshipped and that the angel was a fellow servant of God as John.  Many Mormons I've met hold fast to the belief that "a God who can't make me a God too is no God at all".  Granted, that is about the brashest statement of faith I've heard from a Mormon on the topic, I've also been told that people will die if it isn't true??  Then you have the couplet and belief that God became a God by the gospel of eternal progression, which does violence to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the rest of the Biblical witnesses about God - who He is VS who we are.  No Christian should disagree with Jesus teaching that we who are believers and faithful and have the faith of Jesus Christ and are doers of His word will be as the angels in the resurrection.  The mortal must be clothed with immortality.  Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

2.  The economy of God is in His truth, soverienty, creation and faithfulness to His rule, not that any man or angel councels God about things He doesn't already know.  Satan drew a third of the angels of heaven to rebel against Him.  Was it a vote?  Heaven is not a democracy.  Being children of God is not about democracy, for it is a kingdom of which God is LORD of Lords, King of kings,   So there are angels of armies, angels of worship, angels of helping us on earth, and who knows how many or what every purpose is, the fact is that the economy of God is that His will is done in heaven, and those under His authority on earth are also about doing His will in spirit and truth and not adding to what has already been given for us to believe and do.  If we think we too can be a God (as He is, not as the angels), just how is that different from what the serpent said in Eden?  Why would anyone want to go back to that issue and do likewise in spite of all that the law, prophets and Son have testified as true?  I think Mormons get too close, if not smack dab in the middle of it.

[Ron Beron]

Quote

The story of Eden states that the Lord took advantage of the wet-clay-like soil and �?¢â?¬�??formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul�?¢â?¬�? (Gen 2:7). 

I was under the impression that the gods took the blood of Tiamat's son, Kingu, and mixed it with the soil of the earth and made Adam which literally means "person of the red earth".  This seems to give some literary validity to what you are saying.

[urroner]

Neighbor, on Sep 5 2006, 10:40 PM, said:

If we think we too can be a God (as He is, not as the angels), just how is that different from what the serpent said in Eden?

I don't remember anything in Genesis when the serpent told Eve she could be a God?  I remember reading something about the serpent saying that if she ate of the fruit that she would be like the Gods, knowing good and evil.

neighbor, maybe you could explain to me how the two different statements mean the same thing.  I have often heard this argument used against my beliefs, but I just don't see it being a valid argument.

[structurecop]

urroner, on Sep 5 2006, 07:22 PM, said:

Neighbor, on Sep 5 2006, 10:40 PM, said:

If we think we too can be a God (as He is, not as the angels), just how is that different from what the serpent said in Eden?

I don't remember anything in Genesis when the serpent told Eve she could be a God?  I remember reading something about the serpent saying that if she ate of the fruit that she would be like the Gods, knowing good and evil.

Besides that, was Eve so dense that this statement did not phase her? "be as the Gods..." Why didn't Eve react to that statement with a Yeah-HUH?!    if it were so clear that there was only ONE "God"?

[David Bokovoy]

Quote

Besides that, was Eve so dense that this statement did not phase her? "be as the Gods..." Why didn't Eve react to that statement with a Yeah-HUH?!   if it were so clear that there was only ONE "God"?

Of course the fact of the matter is that God himself confirms the serpent's observation in the very same chapter:

"Then the Lord God said, 'See, the man has become like on of us, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:22).

[structurecop]

David Bokovoy, on Sep 5 2006, 08:09 PM, said:

Of course the fact of the matter is that God himself confirms the serpent's observation in the very same chapter:

"Then the Lord God said, 'See, the man has become like on of us, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:22).

Ah, silly David, you know as well as I do that that's obviously referring to the pre-mortal Trinity, nothing more.

[David Bokovoy]

Quote

Ah, silly David, you know as well as I do that that's obviously referring to the pre-mortal Trinity, nothing more.

Indeed!  However, if one is willing to read the text itself without the lenses of Hellenized Christianity, it is quite clear that Adam and Eve became like the gods in knowing (as explained, they were already like the gods in every other sense).   From a biblical perspective, the sacred power to procreate represents the highet form of imagio dei.

Edited by David Bokovoy, 06 September 2006 - 06:31 AM.

[hooberus]

Are you claiming that the verses which speak of the divine council support the idea that there are there are other Gods who are ontologically equal to Yahweh, and/or that men such as yourselves can attain to ontological equality with the true God?

Edited by hooberus, 06 September 2006 - 07:09 AM.

[Dan Vogel]

David,

Quote

In recent years, textual and archeological discoveries have had a significant impact upon our contemporary understanding of the Bible. One of these important discoveries includes the essential administrative role fulfilled by the divine council.

Unlike many contemporary religious traditions influenced by the later post-biblical view of radical monotheism, biblical Israel believed in a council of gods who governed the affairs of the universe.

The concept of a divine council of gods is, in fact, so central to the biblical world view that non-LDS scholar Patrick D. Miller has referred to this council as �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??a fundamental symbol for the Old Testament understanding of how the government of human society by the divine world is carried out.�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�?; see Patrick D. Miller, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 432.

The scholarly understanding of this fundamental biblical symbol has influenced the way in which recent Bible translations have rendered a number of texts including Deuteronomy 32:8.

The earliest Hebrew manuscript for this passage refers to the gods of the heavenly council, hence, the translators of the New Revised Standard Version render the verse as �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??when the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? (Deut. 32:8; NRSV).

A few of the primary Hebrew words associated with the heavenly council in the Old Testament include s�??�?´�??�?´d �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??council�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? (Jer 18: 22; 23:18; Job 15:8; Ps 25:14), m�??�?´�??�?´�?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??ēed �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??meeting, assembly�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? (Isaiah 14:13), �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??ēed�??�?¢�??�?¢ �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??congregation�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? (Ps 82:1), qedoshim �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??the Holy Ones�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? (Ps 89:5; Zech 14:5; Job 5), saba�?¢â?¬â?¢�?¢â?¬â?¢ �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??host�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? (Gen 2:1; Deut 4:19; 1 Kin 22:19; Ps 103:21; 148:2), beney elim/ beney (ha)elohim �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??sons of God�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? (Ps 29:1; 89:6/ Gen 6:1-2; Job 1:6), elohim �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??gods�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? (Ps 82:1; 86:8; 95:3,4; 97:7,9; 135:5; 136:2; 138:1), and elim �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??gods�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? (Ex 15:11; Ps 58:1).

According to the Psalmist, the Lord is �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??a God dreaded in the council of holy beings�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? (89: . �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??The members of this sod [i.e. council] around Yahweh,�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? notes non-LDS Bible scholar H.-J Fabry, �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??are kept clearly on the terminological periphery, and finally their designation as qedosim [i.e. holy ones] even opens up the possibility that human beings also belong to this council (c.f. Job 15:8; Ps. 89:8[7]), though this involves primarily the prophets (1 K. 22:19-22;Isa.6;40:1-8;Jer.23:18,22;Am.3:7)�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�?; see H.-J. Fabry, �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??sod,�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry eds. (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004): 174.

Hence, biblical authors not only believed that the universe was governed by a divine council of deities, they openly professed that human beings could become actual members of this council.

It stands to reason therefore that much like Latter-day Saints, biblical authors believed that humans could become gods.

�?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??The council of YHWH is for those who fear him,�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? declares the Psalmist, �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�??to them he makes known his covenant�?¢â?¬�?�?¢â?¬�? (Psalm 25:14).

Since those who fear Yahweh become members of his divine council of deities, it seems clear that the Latter-day Saint theology regarding human deification is much more congruent with biblical theology than our critics would have us believe.

Although there are some broad similarities, aren�?¢â?¬â?¢t you overlooking some significant differences between the OT concept and LDS doctrine? The identity of the gods is different, and the notion of the pre-moral existence of humans as spirits would not be included in the OT concept. Also, you seem to be conflating and blurring the LDS doctrine of humans becoming gods with who sat on this council before the creation of humans.

[The Traveler]

There is a very big problem with Christian theology and the singular "one" G-d and only one singular G-d doctrine.  The problem is that such a doctrine in light of Old Testament relationship between G-d and man existed without a Mediator.  If it is true and a fact; that man dealt with the same �?¢â?¬�??one�?¢â?¬�? singular G-d, before and after the fall, then the Christian doctrine of a Messiah or Christ that �?¢â?¬�??must�?¢â?¬�? intercede and �?¢â?¬�??atone�?¢â?¬�? for man�?¢â?¬â?¢s sins to �?¢â?¬�??redeem�?¢â?¬�? man prior or before man can �?¢â?¬�??come unto�?¢â?¬�? (have covenant relationship) with G-d  is a lie and Jesus of Nazareth could not have possibly been the �?¢â?¬�??Son of G-d�?¢â?¬�?.  

For example: If Moses was able to �?¢â?¬�??come unto G-d�?¢â?¬�? at the burning bush and this is the very same G-d of heaven as recorded prior to the fall then we know that G-d is able to deal with man, establish his covenants and have man come unto him with out a mediator or Christ.  When Jesus said, �?¢â?¬�??I am the way the truth and the light and no man comes unto the Father but by me�?¢â?¬�? - is would have been out right lie and the Jews would have been justified by the law given Israel from Moses from the very one and only one G-d that also gave covenants to Israel in the law, to put Jesus to death for blasphemy as recorded in John Chapter 10.

But if, after the fall, there was in reality, only one Mediator G-d that could act a mediator with the G-d of heaven that had the legal right under the law of heaven to act in the �?¢â?¬�??name�?¢â?¬�? of the Suzerain of heaven as his vassal servant.  Such a Mediator would be the only G-d that could bring those of man that meet the qualifications of the law back to the Suzerain.  With this legal appointment from the Suzerain such a vassal servant would have the right to say in the first person he was the Suzerain of heaven, that he does all things in the name of the Suzerain of heaven and that he and the Suzerain of heaven are �?¢â?¬�??one�?¢â?¬�? under covenant.  All of which Jesus testified was exactly his role and assignment given him by G-d the Father.

The singularity of G-d is because of the fall of man and the law of G-d the Father that requires fallen man to have a Mediator G-d as the only possibility to be salvaged (salvation) man from the fall.

The Traveler

[Uncle Dale]

[double posting]

Edited by Uncle Dale, 06 September 2006 - 05:40 PM.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Dan,

Thanks for reading my post.

Quote

Although there are some broad similarities, aren�?¢â?¬â?¢t you overlooking some significant differences between the OT concept and LDS doctrine?

There certainly are differences between the Old Testament concept of deification and LDS doctrine.  I enjoy looking at both the similarities and the discrepancies.

Quote

The identity of the gods is different, and the notion of the pre-moral existence of humans as spirits would not be included in the OT concept.

I disagree.  Though it is a bit different, the Old Testament does present views regarding the premortal existence of human spririts.  I�?¢â?¬â?¢ll post more on this later.

Quote

Also, you seem to be conflating and blurring the LDS doctrine of humans becoming gods with who sat on this council before the creation of humans.

Again, I recognize that there are differences (I�?¢â?¬â?¢d be happy to elaborate when I have a bit more time).  However, I honestly believe that the LDS view is much more congruent with the general biblical perspective than the beliefs espoused by most versions of Christianity.

[Olavarria]

David Bokyvoy

I love your threads(mini-essays), they are very interesting.

[David Bokovoy]

As Dan Vogel suggests in this thread, issues pertaining to human deification in the Israelite and LDS spheres are not entirely consistent, nor should we expect them to be.  

Through modern revelation, the Lord has identified this dispensation as a time in which �?¢â?¬�??those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times�?¢â?¬�? (D&C 128: 21).

Notwithstanding the fact that Latter-day Saints possess a greater knowledge via modern revelation concerning deification than the view preserved in the Bible, the reality is that important parallels do exist between LDS theology and biblical tradition.  

The prophet Joseph Smith taught that marriage by the new and everlasting covenant of God provided an essential step in the process of deification.  Through Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s revelation regarding the eternity of the marriage covenant, the Lord declared that those who enter into this order shall �?¢â?¬�??be gods, because they have no end�?¢â?¬�?¦ then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them�?¢â?¬�? (D&C 132:20).  

I find the fact quite intriguing that in both biblical and Near Eastern thought, sexuality and marriage provided an important step towards deification.

As an immortal gardener, man appears in Genesis 2-3 as an earthly extension of the divine council who comes to �?¢â?¬�??know�?¢â?¬�? as God �?¢â?¬�??knows.�?¢â?¬�?  For the story of man in the Garden of Eden, sexuality becomes a sacred rite of passage whereby Adam and Eve ascend to higher levels of divinity.  

Sexual metaphors concerning fruit and gardens are ubiquitous in Near Eastern love poetry; see J. Atkins, Sex in Literature, vol. III (London: 1978): 178, 222.  Ancient Mesopotamian authors, for example, regularly incorporated these metaphors to create erotic motifs:  

Vigorously he sprouted, vigorously he sprouted and sprouted,
Watered it- it being lettuce!
In his black garden of the desert bearing much yield did my darling of his mother,
My barley stalk full of allure in its farrow, water it- water lettuce,
Did my one- a very apple tree bearing fruit at the top- water it- it being a garden!; as cited in T. Jacobsen, Harps that Once: Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987): 94.

Do not dig a [canal]
Do not plough [a field], let me be your field.
Farmer, do not search for a wet place,
My precious sweet, let me be your wet place.
Let the ditch (?) be your farrow,
let me be your canal,
Let our little apples be your desire!; as cited in Leick, Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature, 149-150.

The highly sexual connotation of gardens and fruit was not unknown to the author of the Song of Songs 4:12-13a:

A garden locked is my sister,
my bride,
a garden locked, a fountain
sealed.
Your channel is an orchard of pomegranates
with all choicest fruits

Demonstrating sensitivity towards the role of sexuality in the opening chapters of the Genesis account, Marc Brettler has observed that �?¢â?¬�??the Garden Story is about immortality lost and sexuality gained.�?¢â?¬�?

As Brettler notes:

Quote

Many details within chapters 2-3 support this interpretation.�??�?  The tree that is first forbidden is (literally) �?¢â?¬�??the tree of knowledge of good and bad.�?¢â?¬â?¢�??�?  Here da-at �?¢â?¬�??knowledge�?¢â?¬â?¢ is being used in a sense that it often has in the Bible: intimate or sexual knowledge�?¢â?¬�?¦Only after the primordial couple eats from the tree do they gain sexual awareness.�??�?  Indeed, immediately after this story concludes, we read �?¢â?¬�??Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain�?¢â?¬â?¢ (Gen. 4:1).�??�?  That is, eating from the tree of �?¢â?¬�??knowledge�?¢â?¬â?¢ leads to a very specific type of �?¢â?¬�??knowing.�?¢â?¬â?¢�??�?  Nowhere in the text is this knowledge depicted as intellectual or ethical; Marc Zvi Brettler, How To Read the Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2005): 45-46.

By learning to �?¢â?¬�??know�?¢â?¬�? as God �?¢â?¬�??knows,�?¢â?¬�?  the biblical account of Eden parallels the connection between deification and sexuality attested in the ancient Near East.

Though controversial and still but little understood, the move towards human deification in the Ur III time period (2112-2004 B.C.) clearly relates to the tradition of hieros gamos or the sacred marriage ritual between king and goddess; for a recent survey of the hieros gamos see Pirjo Lapinkivi, The Sumerian Sacred Marriage in Light of Comparative Evidence (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2004).  

Though some scholars assume that this rite derives from the Old Sumerian period in Uruk, most of the relevant texts concerning the hieros gamos derive from the Ur III and Isin-Larsa period; see for example S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite (London, 1969); and T. Jacobsen, �?¢â?¬�??Notes on Nintur,�?¢â?¬�? Orientalia 42: 125f.e  

In his important survey, J. Cooper notes that �?¢â?¬�??sure evidence for ritual copulation between goddess and ruler exists only for the Ur III and Isin kingdoms�?¢â?¬�?; Jerrold S. Cooper, �?¢â?¬�??Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia,�?¢â?¬�? Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East; ed. Eiko Matsushima (Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag C. Winter, 1993): 83.  

To date, two Sumerian hymns have been discovered that provide graphic descriptions of the sacred marriage of a named king in the specific guise of Dumuzi.   �?¢â?¬�??This explicit evidence for a sacred marriage ritual celebrated by the kings of Ur and Isin justifies interpreting a range of other material from these dynasties as implicit evidence for the same ritual�?¢â?¬�?; see Ibid.  

At present, all evidence indicates that the Ur III monarch participated in the ritualized role of Dumuzi by cohabiting with the goddess Inanna played by an important female participant.   In the sacred ritual, the woman always took the leading role that ultimately transformed the earthly king to a divine status.

In his classic treatise concerning the role of kingship in the ancient Near East, Henri Frankfort suggested that the sexual act between king and goddess directly contributed to the monarch�?¢â?¬â?¢s acquisition of the role of deity:

Quote

It may well be that only those kings were deified who had been commanded by a goddess to share her couch.�??�?  In a general way the kings who use the divine determinative before their names belong to the same period as the texts mentioning the marriage of kings and goddesses; and we have seen that some kings adopted the determinative, not at the beginning, but at a later stage of their reigns.�??�?  If we assume that they did so on the strength of a divine command, we remain within the normal scope of Mesopotamian thought, while the view that the king should have presumed of his own accord to pass the barrier between the human and the divine conflicts with everything we know of Mesopotamian beliefs; Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978): 297.

Though Frankfort may have exaggerated the connection between the deification process and the sacred marriage, clearly, the evidence supports the general assumption that the king�?¢â?¬â?whether figuratively or literally, participated in a sexual act that effectively lead to a transformation in status or position.  

As Kuhrt notes, �?¢â?¬�??through this sexual act [the king] approached the world of the gods more closely than other mortals and ensured the continuing beneficent partnership between humanity and the divine sphere�?¢â?¬�?; Kuhrt, 70.

Now, if anyone has actually made it through this entire post, I feel quite confident you can see how interesting this information proves to Latter-day Saints.

Edited by David Bokovoy, 06 September 2006 - 05:27 PM.

[Neighbor]

structurecop:

Quote

Besides that, was Eve so dense that this statement did not phase her? "be as the Gods..." Why didn't Eve react to that statement with a Yeah-HUH?! blink.gif huh.gif if it were so clear that there was only ONE "God"?

Better go back and re-check the Scriptures.  It doesn't say "be as the Gods".

[Neighbor]

urroner:

Quote

neighbor, maybe you could explain to me how the two different statements mean the same thing. I have often heard this argument used against my beliefs, but I just don't see it being a valid argument.

I'm speaking of the LDS couplet and doctrine of eternal progression and temple sealings and endowments as a package.  There is but one God and the eternal beings who serve Him are angels, some of which are spoken of as angels, the fallen ones being Satan and the demons/evil spirits.

To support there is but one God, when speaking of baptism, we were told to baptize them into the NAME (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and another place says to baptize believers in the name of Jesus Christ.  It's all the same.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Hooberus,

Quote

Are you claiming that the verses which speak of the divine council support the idea that there are there are other Gods who are ontologically equal to Yahweh, and/or that men such as yourselves can attain to ontological equality with the true God?

No.  As vocalized in the Bible, the name Yahweh means �?¢â?¬�??He causes to exist,�?¢â?¬�? or �?¢â?¬�??He Creates.�?¢â?¬�?  When linked with the title �?¢â?¬�??Hosts,�?¢â?¬�?  as in �?¢â?¬�??Lord of Hosts,�?¢â?¬�?  the name means �?¢â?¬�??He creates the heavenly host.�?¢â?¬�?

In the Bible, Israel�?¢â?¬â?¢s deity is consistently presented as the God of gods.

Latter-day Saints believe that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, men and women can become gods and goddess unto the most High God.  

Though a bit small, as I understand it, this preposition is really quite significant.

-----------------------------------  
Neighbor,

Quote

Better go back and re-check the Scriptures. It doesn't say "be as the Gods".

Correct.  It states to be as the gods in knowing.  Better go back and re-check my posts.

Regards,

David