Nephi And His Asherah

[Kevin Christensen]

Yes, I think it's equally viable. Finding Asherah in Nephi's vision is looking beyond the mark that's beyond the mark.

And of course, this allusion to Jacob 4:14 on the "mark" is rather ironic, in the context of Jerusalem 600 BCE.

Lehi's son Jacob describes Jews at Jerusalem who "look[ed] beyond the mark," and "despised the words of plainness" (Jacob 4:14). The mark in question must be the same as that referred to by Ezekiel, another temple priest and an exact contemporary. Barker explains what Ezekiel saw in a vision of the angels of destruction summoned to the temple:

An angel was sent to mark the faithful: "Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark upon the foreheads of the men who groan and sigh over all the abominations that are committed in it" (Ezek. 9.4). The Lord then spoke to the other six angels: "pass through the city after him and smite . . . but touch no one upon whom is the mark . . ." (Ezek. 9.5—6). The mark on the forehead was protection against the wrath.

"Mark," however conceals what that mark was. The Hebrew says that the angel marked the foreheads with the letter

tau

, the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In the ancient Hebrew script that Ezekiel would have used, this letter was a diagonal cross, and the significance of this becomes apparent from the much later tradition about the high priests. The rabbis remembered that the oil for anointing the high priest had been lost when the first temple was destroyed and that the high priests of the second temple were only "priests of many garments," a reference to the eight garments worn on the Day of Atonement. The rabbis also remember that the anointed high priests of the first temple had been anointed on the forehead with the sign of a diagonal cross. This diagonal cross was the sign of the Name on their foreheads, the mark which Ezekiel described as the letter

tau

.

21

This must be the meaning of Jacob's mark; therefore, it quite literally meant for Book of Mormon peoples to take upon themselves the name of Christ—that is, the name of the anointed.

The plainness that Jacob discusses in his fourth chapter emphasizes point for point what Barker argues was lost at just that time.²²

From http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=547

And for the record, in my collabortive essay with Margaret published by Oxford University Press in 2009 (in Joseph Smith Jr.: Reappraisals after Two Centuries), I concluded with the same argument and observations (see 171-172). Somehow, I suspect that if I had tried to pass off something about boy, a bicycle and a trip to the grocery store, I don't think I'd have made it through the peer review.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

[robuchan]

And of course, this allusion to Jacob 4:14 on the "mark" is rather ironic, in the context of Jerusalem 600 BCE.

From http://maxwellinstit...16&num=2&id=547

And for the record, in my collabortive essay with Margaret published by Oxford University Press in 2009 (in Joseph Smith Jr.: Reappraisals after Two Centuries), I concluded with the same argument and observations (see 171-172). Somehow, I suspect that if I had tried to pass off something about boy, a bicycle and a trip to the grocery store, I don't think I'd have made it through the peer review.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

I have a hunch you and Nephi/Jacob have the exact opposite interpretation of the word "plain". You think it means plainly understood only after 200 years of study and only by a handful of scholars.

I think Jacob means the word plain to mean, errrrr, "plain".

[robuchan]

PS, come on guys, can't I get an LOL? Asianize the Heavenly Mother doctrine? "yellow" ribbon? That's comedy gold!

[Ron Beron]

Not sure what was meant about asianize.

There is a Japanese Festival of the Suwa-taisha shrine called ONBASHIRA-SAI held every 7 years.

See this youtube video at approx. 5:00 minutes.

A local rabbi in Japan is asked about it. He pulls out the Bible and the video continues:

This notion of Asherah is not unique to LDS Apologists.

To apply it to the Book of Mormon and Lehi's and Nephi's vision of the Tree of Life and of the Mother of our Savior, is really quite odd.

It's downright disrespectful, in my opinion.

http://www.aisf.or.j...a/h/hashira.htm Hashira

LOL...Obashira festival is probably the exact opposite of an Asherah. Today, they call pillars outside temples bashira or pillar. The Shinto Obashira in front of the temples were taken down in the late 1800's because, well...they were phallic representations that challenged the sensitivities of the Victorians. They can still be found, but they are pretty rural. I would post a photo, but it would probably be taken down. They are fairly obvious. Early in Japanese history the Japanese used something called Hitobashira which were sacrificial human pillars. Fertility figures to be sure, but not female. Edited July 8, 2012 by Ron Beron

[Ron Beron]

The point of First Temple theology is that the anointed High Priest who entered the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement was what they concieved of as the Messiah, which means anointed.

But I doubt if that's what you had in mind. The closest thing in the direction of a national savior political figure would have been King Josiah himself. Marvin Sweeny's book on the topic is called King Josiah of Judah: Lost Messiah of Israel.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Thanks Kevin. I'll check it out. BTW, thanks for the shout out for M. Barker. Never have I found a series of books since intense as hers. I am used to making notations in my books and the notes in her books have added about two pounds to the overall weight.

[Ron Beron]

PS, come on guys, can't I get an LOL? Asianize the Heavenly Mother doctrine? "yellow" ribbon? That's comedy gold!

[volgadon]

I have a hunch you and Nephi/Jacob have the exact opposite interpretation of the word "plain". You think it means plainly understood only after 200 years of study and only by a handful of scholars.

I think Jacob means the word plain to mean, errrrr, "plain".

Plain to whom? The Bible in Pidgin would be plain to Pidgin speakers, but would it be plain to English as a second language speakers from Eastern Europe? Is Chaucer plain to you?

[Calm]

PS, come on guys, can't I get an LOL? Asianize the Heavenly Mother doctrine? "yellow" ribbon? That's comedy gold!

The Yellow Peril is a bit out of date, don't you think?

I have not heard the term "yellow" used for decades to describe asians except for materials dealing with WWII era. I would never have made that connection. Sorry.

[Kevin Christensen]

Thanks Kevin. I'll check it out. BTW, thanks for the shout out for M. Barker. Never have I found a series of books since intense as hers. I am used to making notations in my books and the notes in her books have added about two pounds to the overall weight.

You are most welcome. I still remember spotting The Great Angel at a Half Price Books in Dallas in 1999. My copy is dog eared, marked all over, and close to falling apart. It's been a fascinating ride so far.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PS

[Ron Beron]

You are most welcome. I still remember spotting The Great Angel at a Half Price Books in Dallas in 1999. My copy is dog eared, marked all over, and close to falling apart. It's been a fascinating ride so far.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PS

I have just started reading, Temple Themes in Christian Worship and find it utterly fascinating. She has insights that reflect well within the Mormon framework.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have a hunch you and Nephi/Jacob have the exact opposite interpretation of the word "plain". You think it means plainly understood only after 200 years of study and only by a handful of scholars.

I think Jacob means the word plain to mean, errrrr, "plain".

Yeh, it might have been "plain" to someone from Jacob's time and place, but have a look at page 1 of my paper on plainness and midrash at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/44328710-Peshat-Plainness . Great biblical scholars just don't share your view. And here we are, thousands of years removed from the time the text was written, and we have it in translation too. Is it just by gosh and by golly, or might there be more involved?

[robuchan]

Yeh, it might have been "plain" to someone from Jacob's time and place, but have a look at page 1 of my paper on plainness and midrash at http://www.scribd.co...eshat-Plainness . Great biblical scholars just don't share your view. And here we are, thousands of years removed from the time the text was written, and we have it in translation too. Is it just by gosh and by golly, or might there be more involved?

I don't believe in a God that would require years of studying ancient languages to understand his scriptures. And neither did the prophets of the Book of Mormon, who railed on this sort of thing.

[Ron Beron]

I don't believe in a God that would require years of studying ancient languages to understand his scriptures. And neither did the prophets of the Book of Mormon, who railed on this sort of thing.

It wouldn't require years, but certainly it would require some intelligent and academic honesty.

DC 9:7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

[robuchan]

It wouldn't require years, but certainly it would require some intelligent and academic honesty.

This verse is in regards to Oliver Cowdery translating the BOM with his diving rod. Why would it have anything to do with the relative plainness of the BOM?

[Calm]

I don't believe in a God that would require years of studying ancient languages to understand his scriptures. And neither did the prophets of the Book of Mormon, who railed on this sort of thing.

I don't see it as an either/or situation. A child understands the scriptures just fine for what he needs if they are taught to him in a simplified way. Anyone can have access to the spirit while reading and there is no better teacher than that.

What education does is simply open up more ways of examining the scriptures, gives more opportunity for the Spirit to draw one's eye to a particular relationship or understanding. If we are open to studying with others (which is what education is), then we have allowed ourselves to be open to learn about what the scriptures have to teach us...or rather what the Spirit has to teach us through the scriptures.

One is not necessarily superior to the other. If one forms an idea of what the scriptures must mean, then whether that understanding is based on just reading them without any background attached to them it is just as bad if one forms that idea 'written in stone' based on conclusions formed from intensive study and familiarity with the culture and language.

Edited July 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

It's because most symbols are so common that they are used frequently with no intention of making a connection to a symbolic meaning.

"Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree" is not Tony Orlando's attempt to asianize the Mother in Heaven doctrine.

This may be true of certain segments of 21st century Western civilization, though less so with other segments (like artists) and Eastern civilizations.

Sadly, though, many today who are steeped in Western thought, mistakenly project their modern, relatively non-symbolic culture onto the writings of ancient Eastern people's, which inadvertently blinds them from seeing the rich layers of intended symbolic meaning in those writings.

Case in point?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I don't see it as an either/or situation. A child understands the scriptures just fine for what he needs if they are taught to him in a simplified way. Anyone can have access to the spirit while reading and there is no better teacher than that.

That, in part, is the beauty of ancient scriptures, which, for those who are teachable, permits a plain understanding of the scriptures throughout a person's spiritual growth. I plainly understood the creation narrative the first time I heard. I also plainly understand it now--though in a far more in-depth and symbolic way than when I first heard it.

Unfortunately, because of pride, some people don't progress beyond the plain meaning they learned as children. They get stuck in a plain, fundamentalist way of looking at things, which tends to put them at dissonance within the more nuanced, non-fundamentalist adult world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't believe in a God that would require years of studying ancient languages to understand his scriptures. And neither did the prophets of the Book of Mormon, who railed on this sort of thing.

I agree wholeheartedly that God doesn't "require years of studying ancient languages to understand his scriptures," and the prophets certainly would agree with you as well. However, without the Holy Spirit to guide one through such ancient texts, what other option is there?

Evangelical fundamentalists strongly but erroneously believe that the simple English text of Scripture can be understood without the guidance of the Spirit which gave it -- that such English texts can be understood on their own terms, interpreted from within themselves, with no effort to bridge the vast gulf in time and culture which separates us from that world. I am sympathetic to their aims, and understand them from my own reading of Scripture as a teenager, but we must grow up at some point and ask the more substantial and serious questions which the evangelicals are generally too fearful to ask. It does require effort, but it repays large dividends.

[volgadon]

Evangelical fundamentalists strongly but erroneously believe that the simple English text of Scripture can be understood without the guidance of the Spirit which gave it -- that such English texts can be understood on their own terms, interpreted from within themselves, with no effort to bridge the vast gulf in time and culture which separates us from that world. I am sympathetic to their aims, and understand them from my own reading of Scripture as a teenager, but we must grow up at some point and ask the more substantial and serious questions which the evangelicals are generally too fearful to ask. It does require effort, but it repays large dividends.

Christopher Hill's "The World Turned Upside Down" contains an interesting discusiion of when and where that idea took hold in the English-speaking world.

[Ron Beron]

This verse is in regards to Oliver Cowdery translating the BOM with his diving rod. Why would it have anything to do with the relative plainness of the BOM?

I guess if you think you can translate simply by asking without doing the requisite pondering and meditation then I would suppose you wouldn't have any idea what it has do with our discussion.

[Ron Beron]

This may be true of certain segments of 21st century Western civilization, though less so with other segments (like artists) and Eastern civilizations.

Sadly, though, many today who are steeped in Western thought, mistakenly project their modern, relatively non-symbolic culture onto the writings of ancient Eastern people's, which inadvertently blinds them from seeing the rich layers of intended symbolic meaning in those writings.

Case in point?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have studied/taught Japanese for the last 30 years and am amazed at the written language using kanji (characters drawn with symbolic reference). I once roughly drew a picture of a TV set and asked my Japanese students what it meant. Not one could answer the question because they were bound in the symbology of their language. My American students, however, recognized it immediately as a TV due in part to their non-symbolic acclimation. Americans have lost the ability to think in a symbolic way.