Elohim And Heavenly Mother

[e=mc2]

Jason H to Ben:

Ben, if you read the previous threads I had been more precise saying Asherah had never been the consort of a deity named Elohim. I quoted Margaret Barker who said Asherah is always associated with Yahweh. All of this was in the context of discussing the Elohim, Jehovah, Michael trio in Mormonism. In Mormonism it is Elohim who is married to the Queen of Heaven, not Jesus. This is no minor point. It is huge for those who want to talk about how biblical scholarship is boosting Mormon doctrine at this point. I was pointing out that this means the Asherah/Yahweh connection in scholarship doesn't support the LDS concept. All of the necessary familial roles are there, but all the characters are rearranged in a manner that simply doesn't work in the Mormon paradigm.

Again, we may be off on some details, I can live with that. All things are not restored and correctly understood or known as of yet. But the idea of BOTH Elohim and Jesus being married certainly doesn't effect Mormon theology negatively as it does Christianity. True your detail points may be something, minor though it is to us. But the FACT that archaeologically GOD IS MARRIED is simply ******HUGE******** for Mormon theology, I don't care WHICH God it 's talking about. The overall paradigm of earthly marriage symbolizing Heavenly marriage and eternal families is just absolutely THE WHOPPER, and you know it, al your silly nitpickings to the absolute contrary Kevin.

[structurecop]

I'm fully aware of the Deut 32:8. It doesn't cause a problem for anything I have argued.

Except, of course, that it is clear that YHWH is subordinate to Elyon here.

[Sargon]

Jason(Kevin?) said in the OP:

The next best thing they can do is connect her with El, and then try to argue El and Elohim are essentially the same (well, only in the sense that elohim and Baal/Yamm/Mot are the same). But they cannot connect her with El unless they dig deeper into Ugarit. But as I said, once we reach that point in prehistory we are dealing with a character that is best to ignore.

I have been reading John Day's work "Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan", which I recommend anyone interested in this subject.

On page 27 I caught something that he is not intending to demonstrate, but that stuck out to me. In response to Jason's(Kevin's?) implication that one would have to dig too deep into Ugarit myth in order to connect Asherah to El, I cite Ezekiel 28:2

2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

1) The first use of "Lord God" is "adhonay yehoih", or Yahweh. Therefore this is Yahweh speaking.

2) The next use of the words "I am a God" is "I am El" in hebrew. Here we have Yahweh himself, the high God of gods, accepting the name-title "El" as a title for himself.

3) "seat of God" is "moshabh elohim", or seat of Elohim. So the prince of Tyrus is declaring, "I am El, I sit in the seat of Elohim." This is a clear use of two names for the same person.

4) Skipping to the end of the verse, Yahweh says "thou art a man, and not El, though thou set thine heart as the heart of Elohim." Another clear example of the terms El and Elohim referring to the same individual.

5) Gods throne is described as being in the "midst of the seas". We know that in Ugaritic myth El's throne was usually described as being at the head of two rivers. But interestingly enough, we also know that Asherah was often called "Lady of the Sea".

I am no expert on this subject, but I am learning. I see a El being called Elohim in this verse, and link from El's throne to the sea, or the "Lady of the Sea". I will let you experts decide if this is evidence or not for Elohim being associated with Asherah at a date late in Israel's history.

Sargon

[e=mc2]

CKS:

I was just frustrated, Kerry. Sorry about that.

I was also, and there was no call for it, I apologize toboth you and Jersey Girl, and yes even Jason H, for being so short tempered. It's his style ofwriting, that is exactly like Kevin Graham's in style, content, and sarcasm, so I assume Jason is Kevin. He rubs me wrong for some reason, I have no business even bothering with him. I shall try to get back on track with you guys.

[cksalmon]

CKS:

I was also, and there was no call for it, I apologize toboth you and Jersey Girl, and yes even Jason H, for being so short tempered. It's his style ofwriting, that is exactly like Kevin Graham's in style, content, and sarcasm, so I assume Jason is Kevin. He rubs me wrong for some reason, I have no business even bothering with him. I shall try to get back on track with you guys.

Well, these are big issues. No harm, no foul. Productive of good conversations, though.

Best.

CKS

PS. And JG can take care of herself. She's a tiger.

[Sargon]

Awwww.....noone replied to my post.

Sargon

[Ron Beron]

Sargon writes,

I have been reading John Day's work "Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan", which I recommend anyone interested in this subject.

Thanks for the heads up on this book. I just ordered it.

5) Gods throne is described as being in the "midst of the seas". We know that in Ugaritic myth El's throne was usually described as being at the head of two rivers. But interestingly enough, we also know that Asherah was often called "Lady of the Sea".

I am no expert on this subject, but I am learning. I see a El being called Elohim in this verse, and link from El's throne to the sea, or the "Lady of the Sea". I will let you experts decide if this is evidence or not for Elohim being associated with Asherah at a date late in Israel's history.

There is a real interesting connection with the word "chaos" or Yamm in Genesis 1. Apparently it is also connected linguistically with Tiamat, the female serpent deity of Mesopotamia, who ruled the seas. I don't remember much at this point. I will need to update my memory.

[structurecop]

There is a real interesting connection with the word "chaos" or Yamm in Genesis 1. Apparently it is also connected linguistically with Tiamat, the female serpent deity of Mesopotamia, who ruled the seas. I don't remember much at this point. I will need to update my memory.

According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible footnote for Gen 1:2 (the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep): "As elsewhere in the Bible, the deep (Heb 'tehom') has no definite article attached to it in the Heb. Some see "tehom" here to be related to the Babylonian goddess Tiamat, a divinity representing oceanic chaos, whom the head god, Marduk, defeated in Enuma Elish."

Good call, both of you.

[Calm]

OT note--I'd be curious about what posters here think of the quality of this man's work on Genesis. Are the various articles decent analysis of the various cultural and other connections (Genesis being one of my favourite books, I am always looking for new material...)?

http://www.crivoice.org/biblestudy/bbgen.html

[Benjamin McGuire]

JasonH writes:

Ben, what evidence do you have to support this?

Hmm, I am not sure how I would support this other than on the basis of personal observations and having read a great deal of LDS literature in which this idea is contradicted. That is, there isn't any kind of official statement to this effect (like we see in later LDS discussion), and the promotion of this idea really doesn't come to the forefront until we see Talmage and those in the leadership at the time working to establish some kind of systematic theology (which in my opinion was a failed enterprise). Someone did provide a bunch of quotes. I think that while it could be argued that the temple liturgy does make this connection more explicit than anywhere else, I also think that this argument has to be tempered by the fact that the temple liturgy doesn't seem to have been used as the standard for popular usage of these terms. And in light of popular usage conflating these names, and without evidence of an official statement or direction, I think it is safe to conclude that no such standard existed. Furthermore, you especially didn't see this kind of distinction made by those who were proficient in Biblical Hebrew (ala Pratt).

Of course not. Are you suggesting Elohim was identified as God the Father not because it is really the divine name, but because it was just a popular term in Joseph's day?

Oh, certainly that. I have plenty of early 19th century literature referring to God as Elohim. But that wasn't my argument at all. No matter how it was used in the 19th century, those LDS leaders who used these names exclusively to identify persons in the Godhead were doing so because of how they interpreted the Bible. But it is still a 19th and 20th century creation (that kind of usage). To read the Bible in these terms is still going to do damage to the text. That is, even if modern prophets assumed that these names are representative is no reason to read the Bible (whose production they had no control over) in the same mold. Furthermore, what we believe of the Biblical text (as in, for example, the documentary source hypothesis) suggests that these titles in the Bible were based on traditions. I think it is also a different discussion altogether to talk about what God's name is, and if calling him God (to use our modern term) is more or less appropriate than calling him Elohim (a Hebrew word) or by the equivalent in any other language. Which is more significant? What is said (the locutionary act) or what is meant by it or the impact it has (the illocutionary act). But again, to reiterate my point, it is as useless from a textual standpoint to read the biblical text based on usage determined in the 19th century as it is to read the word plastic in terms of a modern polymer instead of the 18th century usage intended by its original author.

Elohim is an ancient term and I am applying its ancient meaning. However people want to redefine it today is really irrelevant to what I am saying.

I agree that there isn't any value in bringing the usage of the modern church into this discussion - but it seems to me that this is what you are doing.

Mormonism claims to be biblical.

As does every other Christian sect. These claims are loosely based on the notion that they have the perogative of interpreting the Old Testament. In fact the New Testament Christianity made the same claims and radially reinterpreted parts of the Old Testament, didn't it. But Mormonism's claims of being a Biblical religion aren't about strictly following everything in the Bible, and never have been. There is no attempt to follow Mosaic Law. So I am not sure how far you want to take this statement. Any LDS (and most Christians for that matter) will find things in the Bible that they do not follow and so it could be said that none of them are entirely Biblical in nature. This seems to me to be a semantic word game (and I can play too).

I think it is safe to assume this was divine revelation.

Whether this is the case or not, the point you are trying to make seems rather ludicrous doesn't it? Effectively, God is named whatever he wants to call himself. Language being what it is, there really isn't two ways around this. By the way, how exactly was YHWH pronounced? And since Joseph Smith uses the term "Jehovah" (in revelations no less), does this mean the Jehovah was the appropriate pronunciation when it was first incorporated into the Biblical text? And if not, does this mean that Joseph was using a cultural affection for the name of God to refer to God without a need for some kind of literal accuracy in terms of the name and its spelling and how it should be pronounced? (I know that several LDS may disagree with me, but I am simply calling the shots as I see it here).

Is it really unreasonable for us to expect these claims to be testable at all?

It seems testable enough - just ask God.

... but we cannot argue our faith is the "most biblical" as apologists often do.

I am an apologist (at least from time to time). So we can't consider this to be all-inclusive for your statement, right? I think, again, that this is an issue where you are creating the argument - a straw-man so to speak. Because part of this is defining what it means to be "most biblical" - and for those who engage in these debates, if there is a "most biblical" then there has to be a "less biblical" and perhaps a "least biblical" and there is also going to be a system by which these can be judged. If we were to line up every religion in the world and measure them by the Levitical dietary codes, then we could produce a "most biblical" religion and place them in a hierarchy with a "least biblical" at the bottom. But what you are doing here isn't really doing justice to the apologists (whether they are in error or not). You are taking your own system of evaluation and challenging them on the notion of "most biblical" when it is quite likely that using your own sets of values, they wouldn't rank Mormonism as the "most biblical" either. It's a nice distraction technique, but it doesn't result in your presenting a very meaningful discussion.

I am not saying the OT can only be read by reintroducing the Mormon definitions of these words. I am not saying anything close to that. Biblical scholarship tells us one thing about elohim and Mormon revelation tells us another.

No. They aren't talking about the same thing. You are conflating these issues. It is true that certain apologists may also conflate these issues. But it doesn't make your statements accurate.

So why are we trying to pretend biblical scholarship is backing us up?

Let's take Dr. Peterson's article on Nephi's Asherah. I know a fair amount about the material it covers. I know a lot about traditions in ancient Israel (relatively speaking). I know a fair amount about the Book of Mormon. I don't think Dr. Peterson's argument in that article simplifies to the claim that Biblical Scholarship is backing us up. What his argument is exploring is the idea that Biblical Scholarship is creating a sense of the religious and theolgocial context in which the earliest Book of Mormon authors (Nephi and Jacob) would have written there texts. That this biblical scholarship would lead us to look for one of a handful of models in the Book of Mormon (as there were competing views). And lo and behold not only can the Book of Mormon be read in such a way, it can be read coherently and that such a context can be shown to provide additional insight into the possible intentions of those authors.

You make a good point with the poem above, only if Joseph Smith revealed the name of God as it was in early 19th century. It was never qualified then and it isn't today. The creation of the world, as its reenactment is presented in the temple, took place long before the 19th century. Smith intended us to know this was God's name as it has always been understood. It is ancient. As a prophet that is what he does. He restores ancient truths. But scholarship doesn't support this. This isn't to say our faith should be based on scholarship. I am not talking about faith at all really. I am talking about bad apologetics. The only thing we can do really is to say Israel and Ugarit got it wrong. At some point the generations between Adam and the Ugaritic kings, decided to apostatize and corrupt the real name of God the Father.

But Elohim as a name of God (which it is used as a definate noun - specificall as a name of God - just as we use God (with the capitol C to indicate definiteness) is used in the Bible. Not every instance can or should be read as an class indicator. I don't think that anyone has ever had a "real" name for God. Perhaps Adam (but then, that presupposes that Adam could speak a perfect language). In fact, when Joseph Smith gets the revealed name of God, it isn't a name like "Elohim" or "Jehovah". What does the revelation say?

... for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name ...

That's pretty straightforward don't you think? Of course, I still ahve issues (personally) with the notion that we can have any kind of pure language (although admittedly, this has been a dream for philosophers in all ages- Jews have held that Hebrew is the language of God, and Christians have held that the language of God is discernable in Gregorian chant, or in the Mass; Newton claimed it was mathematical physics). There has always been this idea that a pure language is imminent in the expectation of single community (the community of faith), and that this language creates a unifying structure. (John ROthfork had an interesting discussion in this in his article "Postmodern Ethics: Richard Rorty and Michael Polanyi" (Souther Humantities Review Winter 1995). Now, I will agree with you the Mormon apolgists who tend to read this usage of Elohim/Jehovah back onto the Biblical text are in fact creating misapprehension in the text. But I don't think that this is true of all (or even most) apologists. It certainly isn't true of Dr. Peterson's articles.

Please show me how I am. I really don't see it. Your example above is invalid because I am not doing what you thought I was doing. And I'm quite confused why you would think that I was. I can only assume you have not read the two previous threads from which this one was born.

That is right. I haven't read them. But then I shouldn't need to. I am reading what you wrote here.

In what sense are we biblical at all?

This is (as I note above) an appropriate question. But you don't get to beat the apologists over the head just because you disagree with them over the answer to this question.

Ben, if you read the previous threads I had been more precise saying Asherah had never been the consort of a deity named Elohim.

Does the Bible ever use Elohim as a name for the divinity YHWH? The question is not simple, of course, because the Bible is a composite document whose final form is likely significantly different from the pieces that made it up - not only in content but in interpretation.

All of this was in the context of discussing the Elohim, Jehovah, Michael trio in Mormonism. In Mormonism it is Elohim who is married to the Queen of Heaven, not Jesus.

Not at all. In fact a person identified as the "Queen of Heaven" is completely foreign to Mormonism and LDS belief. We do note that we believe in (generally speaking) a "Mother in Heaven" - but Mormon belief is also devoid of worship of that person, and details about such a being are notably absent from Mormon theology.

But I should mention one other thing. This is a biblical notion of a divine femine, am I right? What other Christian religion deals with the divine feminine? Yes, there are some who talk about the feminine in terms of Spirit Christology (that is, the fact that the MAN Jesus, prior to his creation as a man, when he existed only as the second person in the Godhead, can be read as being referred to as the feminine), or that the Holy Ghost is feminine, but these arguments don't carry anywhere near the same development as a "Mother in Heaven" as the divine feminine. The Jewish faith ends up with the shekinah, the presence of God who is portrayed as the feminine aspect of God. Catholicism has Mary (which is an interesting discussion). So what is your claim here? How is Mormonism, in its active presentation of the divine feminine (just because it doesn't resemble the Biblical encounter much) somehow no longer the "most biblical"?

Of course asherah is "associated" with elohim, but only because her husband Yahweh is an elohim. But it isn't his name, which is my entire point.

By the time the Bible reaches its current form, it is his name.

But Jesus isn't called Jesus. He is called Jehovah. And Adam isn't called Adam, he is called Michael. When speaking to the Father he is called Elohim. We know for a fact the first two are proper names in Mormon doctrine, so it only seems logical that the latter is as well.

Here, I think, you miss something. Adam, in the temple, is also called Adam. In some places he is identified as Adam and in others as Michael. And the distinction is made because that person plays two roles - one as pre-existing spirit and one as mortal man. So I am not sure that there isn't a use to this. The term "God" when trying to differentiate persons isn't very useful, and it is a problem that has plagued religious literature for a significant period of time.

BTW, I am convinced that El is actually Yahweh in the Bible, even in Psalm 82. You can blame that on Heiser. I suppose.

The interesting thing about Psalm 82 is that while it sits in the Hebrew Psalter, it would likely have been perfectly at home coming from the mouth of a Canaanite worshipper of Ba'al. Only Ba'al would be the one calling the other Elohim to heel in the Assembly of El, not YHWH. And of course there, El would mean El and not Ba'al. So I am not convinced of this at all. It would be interesting to know the date of its original composition.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Calmoriah writes:

OT note--I'd be curious about what posters here think of the quality of this man's work on Genesis. Are the various articles decent analysis of the various cultural and other connections (Genesis being one of my favourite books, I am always looking for new material...)?

I don't think a whole lot of it. He has clearly read a lot of commentaries, but doesn't seem to understand alot of it - even some of the things he talks about. Take this:

The opening line of Genesis can actually be translated three different ways. The traditional reading takes v. 1 as a single sentence and starts a new sentence in v. 2: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The earth was formless and void . . . ." This is a possible translation, although it presents some problems in dealing with the Hebrew text. Without going into detail about the Hebrew, it is probably better to take the opening line as the beginning of a dependant temporal clause. This leads to two other possible translations: "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void . . ." or "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void . . . ." (NRSV).

If we take the first verse as a dependant temporal clause (an asyndetic relative clause is a more technical way of describing it), then the main clause that this first verse is suboridinate to is the command for light to exist ("Let their be light"). Such a construction would be translated like this:

In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth (the earth being a desert, and wasteland, and darkness was upon the surface of the abyss, and the breath of God hovered over the surface of the water), then God said, "Let there be light".

Temporally speaking, the several clauses that lead up the main clause all must occur at the same moment in time, an so they must all precede the first act of creation which constitutes the "in the beginning". This then would claim that the earth as a desert and a wasteland (tohu and bohu are nouns unlike "void" and "without form" and seem to indicate a lack of both plant life = desert and animal likfe = wasteland), the darkness, the abyss, the water, the breath of God, all exist prior to that first act of creation, and if they exist prior to that act of creation, it means that they must be uncreated and pre-existent from all eternity. This forced Rashi in the Middle Ages to declare that the first sentence had nothing to do with the actual order of creation. Rather than a textual argument about the reading, the writer of that site introduces a theological argument to salvage his creatio ex-nihilo:

While this may seem like a minor difference, these last two translations serve to shift the emphasis from a concern with time ("beginning") to a concern with the pre-creation condition of the earth. While that may seem like a contradiction to us, accustomed as we are to talking about creation in terms of "out of nothing," we need to realize what the concerns of this passage are. It is probably a valid logical observation that only God is eternal, and therefore he must be the origin of all things, and therefore nothing can exist prior to God (the doctrine of ex nihilo creation, "out of nothing"). That would much later become part of the Jewish confession of faith (cf. 2 Macc 7:28 "I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.")

If you really want a good discussion of this (albeit with a bias - but a bias that is prominently noted), I would recomend the NICOT commentary of Genesis in two volumes by Hamilton. What this website condenses into a couple pages, Hamilton spends three or four dozen pages on, and covers very thoroughly. And when he disposes of it the natural reading, he does so on the basis of a textual argument to support his theology instead of a purely theological one. It's fun, of course, to compare his list of ten propositions for correct interpretation of scripture to Nephi's very simple "... for I did liken all scriptures unto us ..."

Ben

[JasonH]

Iâ??m trying to catch up guys, so bear with me. I might not get to Benâ??s post until later tomorrow. Here is to Kerryâ??s post:

Kevin, do you really believe that the Bible included everything the ancient Israelites knew?

Of course not. But it is an argument from silence to say this stuff would have been in the Bible, had not some mysterious redactors, who didnâ??t like the idea, come along and edit it all out.

It is MORE than enough to note that the ancient Israelites believed and WORSHIPPED a female deity, and what we Mormons label as a Heavenly Mother is also a female deity.

It is more than enough to what?

Unless you can demonstrate that the early Israelites believed this because of revelation, you really havenâ??t done anything to show its truthfulness. Even worse, you cannot show that Joseph Smith actually learned this through revelation. In fact, the evidence that Joseph Smith believed this at all is scant, and it is not canonized or revealed in any public declaration of his â?? which puts it outside the boundaries of â??official doctrineâ? by apologetic standards.

But back to the Israelitesâ?¦ which prophet revealed this to the Israelites? Why does Moses make no mention of her? Abraham? Adam? Isaac? Jacob?

The fact is the â??heavenly motherâ? to which you refer was known by Israelite predecessors who were not claiming revelation either. It is also a fact that the Bible turns on its head, much of the older religion. It adopts ideas and concepts but the differences between biblical and Ugaritic religions overshadow their similarities. It can just as easily be argued that the asherah concept was borrowed for the purpose of assimilation, yet was ultimately turned on its head just the same as other religious beliefs borrowed from Ugarit. Just because Josiah didnâ??t like her doesnâ??t really mean it was OK for the Israelites to believe in her.

THE point is that there IS a female deity period.

But she did not originate in Ancient Israel. Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet receiving messages from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not the nympho-maniacal god of Ugarit who sent his wife out to seduce his rivals.

And again, I canâ??t help but bring this up because it smacks of hypocrisyâ?¦

Why is it when critics bring up LDS â??doctrinesâ? that are well documented in the history of the Church (Journal of Discourses, The Seer, LDS journals etc) the apologists dismiss them out of hand simply because the teachings arenâ??t in one of the standard works. Yet, the wife of God notion is supposedly genuine revelation to Joseph Smith, and it can be found nowhere in LDS scripture. The Church canâ??t be tied down to Adam-God but the apologists would love to tie this one down to Joseph Smith. (no, not ALL apologists Ben)

The Why or where she came from is peripheral to the point that she is.

This is why you should never be taken seriously. You argument seems void of any sense of discerning the strength and weakness of evidence. The why and where is crucial.

She is in Ancient Israel, and she is in Mormonism.

And since when did Mormonism claim a connection with Ancient Israelite religion?

It has always claimed a connection with the Bible. You assume this Israelite belief must have been the result of revelation, and that these beliefs would have been in an uncorrupted Bible, but youâ??re merely begging the question, arguing from silence and ignoring the evidence flying in its face: the simple fact that their predecessors, whose religion shows no revelatory association with Mormonism, believed in the same mother with the same name and the same husband, pretty much proves the whole idea originated from there and was then borrowed by the Israelites - who would then be chastised by their religious authorities for doing so.

Simply because the Bible is silent about how the Israelites knew about the Mother is not proof they didn't have revelation. Surely one such as learned, logical, and powerfully argumentative knows the fallacy of argument from silence on this point yes?

I never once made that argument. But keep playing in the straw if you must. Youâ??ve jumped to the wrong conclusions and made the wrong assumptions about my arguments at every opportunity.

[Kevin] will, but he'll find a way to refute anyting to do with a Mormon apologetic is pure nonsense, because, of course, he is now a disgruntled Mormon, and for heavens sake nothing can be allowed in favor of Mormonism, esepcially if some backyard professor idiot propounds it!

I never had a problem dealing with biblical scholarship; probably because I know how to read and comprehend it. My problem has always been with those who speed-read through books with apologetic zeal and then mangle claims that were actually made. I guess a good way to contrast what I feel is bad apologetics and good scholarship, is to compare your giddy claims to the latest FARMS review which reviews Deverâ??s book and whose author, Von Feldt, comes to the following conclusion:

So I ask again, can we conclude from all this evidenceâ??Dever's archaeology, Barker's wisdom theology, and now the Book of Mormon tree of life imageryâ??that the Latter-day Saint doctrine of a Mother in Heaven is a restoration of the ancient Israelite belief in the Goddess Asherah/Wisdom? I regretfully suggest that no, it is not.

Regretfully...

But the idea of BOTH Elohim and Jesus being married certainly doesn't effect Mormon theology negatively as it does Christianity. True your detail points may be something, minor though it is to

They are major to anyone who wishes to use this as evidence for a restoration. Or at least they should be, to the responsible apologist. I mean good grief, this is no minor detail that Jesus took his Fatherâ??s wife, who had already had celestial sex with a bull named Baal.

Imagine is critics operated this way. Letâ??s just pull a chestnut out of a hat hereâ?¦ oh letâ??s say the notorious â??canâ??t add or subtractâ? argument.

Critic: The Bible says you cannot add scripture to what has already been written.

LDS Apologist: But that is in Revelation, which wasnâ??t even the last biblical book written. Why do you think that verse really exists?

Critic: The why and where is only peripheral to that fact that it is there!

LDS Apologist. The same thing is also said in Deuteronomy.

Critic: The fact is the Bible says you cannot add and Mormonism adds. This is **HUGE**.

But the FACT that archaeologically GOD IS MARRIED is simply ******HUGE******** for Mormon theology, I don't care WHICH God it 's talking about.

I know you donâ??t, which is why nobody should ever take you seriously. Responsible apologists should care.

The overall paradigm of earthly marriage symbolizing Heavenly marriage and eternal families is just absolutely THE WHOPPER, and you know it, al your silly nitpickings to the absolute contrary Kevin.

Well, my nitpickings were probably the same concerns which persuaded the latest FARMS reviewer to conclude what he did â?? the same thing I conclude.

[e=mc2]

Kevin:

It is more than enough to what?

Duh.......

Unless you can demonstrate that the early Israelites believed this because of revelation,

She was the wife of God and worshipped in the Jerusalem temple according to biblical scholars. Perhaps I am overstepping my bounds and should ignore this as you do and then we can agree yes? Thanks, but no.......

you really havenâ??t done anything to show its truthfulness.

TO one such as you, no of course not, nor does it bother me too much either buddy.

Even worse, you cannot show that Joseph Smith actually learned this through revelation.

Oh shock! Oh horror! Oh vile........... woe is me. I KNOW it was accepted as evidence of revelation from Eliza R. Snow's (one of Joseph's plural wives - uh- oh) poetry by the early brethren, and there is no one, NOT ONE OF THEM who refute the idea of having a Heavenly Mother. Oh but she isn't specifically named "Asherah" so therefore it's all of no avail according to you.

In fact, the evidence that Joseph Smith believed this at all is scant, and it is not canonized or revealed in any public declaration of his â?? which puts it outside the boundaries of â??official doctrineâ? by apologetic standards.

So? We all KNOW that it is believed, even though not officialy proclaimed in actual written scripture. Again, so? It's a true doctrine as is, since it reflects what is on earth. EVERY single woman who goes through the temple knows this. YOU may go ahead and remain in darkness and ignorance about the future possibilities of LDS endowed women, but forgive us if we seek the light and love and life.

But back to the Israelitesâ?¦ which prophet revealed this to the Israelites? Why does Moses make no mention of her? Abraham? Adam? Isaac? Jacob?

Again, you mean to tell me if you can't find something in the Bible, it is not possible? It is not true? it is not accurate? Such a naive thinking is above you Kevin, start using some thinking k?

[Ron Beron]

'JasonH' writes...

But she did not originate in Ancient Israel. Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet receiving messages from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not the nympho-maniacal god of Ugarit who sent his wife out to seduce his rivals.

Why would it matter if it didn't. Neither did Abraham, Isaac or Jacob but were prior and current residents of the Levant where the Asherah was prevalent. As far as we know they brought her into Canaan.

And since when did Mormonism claim a connection with Ancient Israelite religion?

I think a great deal of JS's teachings were based on the Old Testament.

I guess a good way to contrast what I feel is bad apologetics and good scholarship, is to compare your giddy claims to the latest FARMS review which reviews Dever's book and whose author, Von Feldt, comes to the following conclusion: So I ask again, can we conclude from all this evidenceâ??Dever's archaeology, Barker's wisdom theology, and now the Book of Mormon tree of life imageryâ??that the Latter-day Saint doctrine of a Mother in Heaven is a restoration of the ancient Israelite belief in the Goddess Asherah/Wisdom? I regretfully suggest that no, it is not.

I am not sure anyone has said that. Frankly, it is the teachings of a civilization vastly older than ours. But, it does suggest something that many religions teach, but never really elucidate, i.e. a female deity. Catholics call her Mary, Hindus call her Kali, the Buddhists have the Kwannon. Even the evangelicals have a form of this deity although it is more philosophical than real.

[e=mc2]

QUOTE (from Kerry)

But the FACT that archaeologically GOD IS MARRIED is simply ******HUGE******** for Mormon theology, I don't care WHICH God it 's talking about.

I know you donâ??t, which is why nobody should ever take you seriously. Responsible apologists should care.

I am saying something you are miscontexting and you know it. I am saying the idea of God being MARRIED is powerfully understood and known now. THAT doctrine that God is MARRIED is the point I make. Which one is irrelevant, it is in heaven and what on earth is reflected in heaven. You nitpick the details all you want, but you have not refuted the point that God is maried according to William G. Dever, and many other Bible scholars. God is MARRIED. That doctrine sits well with Mormonism, and I will SHOUT it above the rooftops and your poor snivvling. Yer just gonna have to live with it bub. It's a true doctrine, and has now come out stronger than ever, by Raphael Patai, William G. Dever, etc. I don't give a damn whether its Elohim or YHWH who Asherah was married to, the POINT you obviously are unwilling to acknowledge is that GOD is married, and if it is ONLY YHWH, the more beautiful power for Mormonism. We follow Christ (who is thought as being YHWH in Mormonism) in ALL things, and some of us actualy do believe he was married.

[Jersey Girl]

I am saying the idea of God being MARRIED is powerfully understood and known now.

How is it "known"?

Jersey Girl

[e=mc2]

Kevin:

And since when did Mormonism claim a connection with Ancient Israelite religion?

Oh, that's right, stoooooopid me, it was BUDDHISM Joseph Smith claimed to reveal, study, and restore.......... nowhere did he ever worry about Adam, Moses, Noah, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham [HEY!!!!!!!! I betchta my last $1.69 you can't find ANYTHING about Abraham of interest with Joseph Smith, NUTHIN, no papyri, no NUTHIN DUDELY!] Elijah, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Malachi, etc. it was the Mahabarata Priesthood, not the Melchizedek Priesthood that interested Joseph. How could I not have know that? I just must be one real DUMB apologist to think Ancient Israel has anything to do with the Restoration of all things. Golly, of course Joseph had no interest in ancient Israel anymore than that fake angel Moroni did who only took the time (THREE times in ONE night) to visit Joseph Smith and quote the Srimad Bhagavatam instead of the ancient Israelite prophets In fact, I am more than positive that Moroni told Joseph "vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvam yaj jnanam advayam brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdayate" - "Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan," rather than the prophecies of Malachi, and Moroni meant that this idea found in the first canto, 2nd chapter in text 11 of the Srimad Bhagavatam is what was to shortly come to pass........... Kevvie, when I grow up, I wanna be just like you, intelligent, well read, and all that.

[e=mc2]

Hi Jersey Girl!

Nice to see you again. Sorry I ignored ya last time. You ask:

How is it "known"?

Through archaeological and biblical interpretation and translation.........and that includes in the Hebrew Bible as Margaret Barker has shown and continues to show.

[Jersey Girl]

Hi Jersey Girl!

Nice to see you again. Sorry I ignored ya last time. You ask:

Through archaeological and biblical interpretation and translation.........and that includes in the Hebrew Bible as Margaret Barker has shown and continues to show.

Kerry you cannot rightly claim that it is "known" that God had a wife as if it were fact. You can say that some of the ancients believed that God had a wife and expressed it in their inscriptions/religious art/forms of worship but the fact remains that it was a belief. Belief is not fact no matter how many people draw it, write it, interpret it, form it, worship it...it remains a belief.

[e=mc2]

O.K., it is believed, by them and by us........... you are correct, and I gladly admit it is now beginning to be believed, and supported through powerful means.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Kevin writes:

But she did not originate in Ancient Israel.

And I am not so certain that this is the case. I refer you to Judith M. Hadley's "Wisdom and the Goddess" in Wisdom in Ancient Israel edited by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and Hugh Godfrey Maturin Williamson (Cambridge University Press, 1997).

[Sargon]

A) Ancient Israel believed in El/Yahweh, who was anthropomorphic and who had a wife named Asherah

B ) Later Israel believed in only the name Yahweh, who was incorporeal and did not have a wife

C) Judaism believed in only the name Yahweh, who was incorporeal and did not have a wife

D) Joseph Smith believed in El/Yahweh, who was anthropomorphic, and who had a wife

Chiasmus isn't just in the Book of Mormon.

According to our current understanding of ancient Israelite theology, which was by no means organized or systematic, Joseph Smith did not ressurrect an exact replica of what we now know was ancient popular religion. But as scholarship advances we see a trend that moves further and further away from the traditional Christian and Jewish ideas, and moves closer and closer to the ideas advanced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, a man who was far ahead for his time(or perhaps far behind for his time).

Squibbling over the details in between is of course a wonderful thing to do, so long as we do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Sargon

[JasonH]

She was the wife of God and worshipped in the Jerusalem temple according to biblical scholars. Perhaps I am overstepping my bounds and should ignore this as you do and then we can agree yes? Thanks, but no.......

It is irrelevant to the point. Sure, there were asherah poles dedicated to her, but if she was truly worshipped in the temple then that is in stark contrast with Mormonism, and it effectively undermines any hopes for a connection. The Church does not offer any kind of memorial to her, even in the temple, and it has repeatedly discouraged any kind of worship of her.

Here is where the apologist plays the game of "Good Israelite, Bad Israelite." There is only one point where he/she could be considered good (the "belief" that God has a wife). The rest of the details are bad... I mean they supposedly received revelation about Asherah's existence, yet managed to get confused over who her husband was, how she was supposed to conduct herself, the proper method of worship, etc. Since when does one revealed truth come with a complete set of incorrect principles?

Don't tell me. Satan allowed some redactor to throw all that stuff in to confuse the future Mormon.

Before the centralization of the temple Israelites had more freedom to corrupt and abuse their temples. Archeology also suggests that there was also a different Yahweh for each place of worship. Was that correct practice too? How many times does the Bible condemn them for idolatry and falling away from truth?

The question is not whether or not Israelites believed/practiced these things. I never disputed this. The question is whether or not they were correct to do so. I donâ??t see how the centralization of the temple could be understood as anything other than a good thing. It was the basis for worship of Yahweh alone, which was then carried down through the ages to Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity, and even in Mormonism!!

I KNOW it was accepted as evidence of revelation from Eliza R. Snow's (one of Joseph's plural wives - uh- oh) poetry by the early brethren, and there is no one, NOT ONE OF THEM who refute the idea of having a Heavenly Mother. Oh but she isn't specifically named "Asherah" so therefore it's all of no avail according to you.

It is of no avail because you cannot begin to connect two dots without first establishing them. The first dot is the idea that Heavenly Mother was revealed to Joseph Smith by revelation. There is no evidence that this is so. The Heavenly Mother doctrine progressed in the Church later on, but was never substantiated as much as other rejected doctrines, such as the Adam-God doctrine, which Brigham Young elaborated on publicly on numerous occasions, even claiming God â??revealedâ? it to him.

So? We all KNOW that it is believed, even though not officialy proclaimed in actual written scripture. Again, so?

You really canâ??t see the significance of this?

If it wasnâ??t revelation to Smith, it cannot be used as evidence of a restoration (which comes by revelation!) Joseph Smith never once taught this idea. Instead, it was originated from a lyric in a poem written by a woman (surprise). The idea resonated with Mormons so naturally there was an attempt to foist this idea onto Joseph Smith to give it more doctrinal validity. But there is no evidence that Joseph Smith accepted it, and certainly no evidence God revealed it to him.

As an aside, I should note that this also points to the fact that the â??official doctrineâ? idead is a modern innovation that would not have been recognized by the Saints in the 19th century. In fact, in 1982 the Ensign published an article arguing that the â??as man is God once wasâ? idea is in fact doctrine: â??the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.â?

However, 15 years later when the Prophet is asked if this is doctrine, he says â??I wouldn't say that.â? And contrary to the 1982 Ensign, he said it is â??more of a couplet than anything else.â? The â??officialâ? doctrine distinction is one without a significant difference, and it appears to be an apologetic attempt to distance the Church from embarrassing teachings.

It's a true doctrine as is, since it reflects what is on earth.

There are plenty of things on earth I would not consider true in heaven. Do I really have to name them? But the New Testament (Matthew 22) cites Jesus teaching that men are not married in heaven. But I guess that must be another corrupted text by some mysterious redactor. I mean thatâ??s â?? possibleâ? right?

EVERY single woman who goes through the temple knows this. YOU may go ahead and remain in darkness and ignorance about the future possibilities of LDS endowed women, but forgive us if we seek the light and love and life.

This is not about future possibilities of future endowed women. This is about whether God has a wife according to Joseph Smith. More importantly it is about whether the Israelites believed this because of revelation, and if the source of their belief has any bearing on its truthfulness. I submit that it does, as would most scholars.

Again, you mean to tell me if you can't find something in the Bible, it is not possible?

No. When wil you be done with the straw men?

It is not true?

As the astute reader will observe, that has never been my argument. I am not the one arguing for a revelatory connection between Joseph Smith and the Ancient Israelites. You cannot even establish the dots, let alone connect them. You think the Israelites had this revealed to them for apologetic reasons. Since weâ??re so interested in what scholarship says, how many scholars believe the Israelites worshipped Asherah because some prophet among them revealed it as a new doctrine? Iâ??m going to go out on a limb here and say none. Virtually all of them recognize it as a form of assimilation with the former Ugarit religious concept.

Ultimately, all you can do is argue that an early Mormon poet was â??possiblyâ? tapped into the same divine line as the Ancient Canaanites. You cannot attribute this to Joseph Smith successfully.

Oh, that's right, stoooooopid me, it was BUDDHISM Joseph Smith claimed to reveal, study, and restore.......... nowhere did he ever worry about Adam, Moses, Noah, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham

But you have provided no evidence that any of these figures believed Asherah was wife to Yahweh. Archeology tells us what many of the Israelites were doing, but the religious texts tell us what was appropriate and acceptable.

I just must be one real DUMB apologist to think Ancient Israel has anything to do with the Restoration of all things.

I asked for a specific reference and this is how you act. Whatâ??s the matter? You cannot come up with something solid? Something whereby Joseph Smith says, â??God is revealing to me lost Israelite teachings? Yes, you are correct that he was interested in Abraham, Isaac Jacob, etc, but this has nothing to do with Asherah â?? which is my point really. Your problem is that you automatically assume whatever archeology tells us about the Israelite practice, also tells us what biblical religion was. The two are clearly distinct, as the Bible rebukes the Israelites for idolatry. You canâ??t keep ignoring the Bible to determine what is â??biblical.â? This is apologetic suicide â?? for those who can see the absurdity of this.

And I am not so certain that this is the case. I refer you to Judith M. Hadley's "Wisdom and the Goddess" in Wisdom in Ancient Israel edited by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and Hugh Godfrey Maturin Williamson (Cambridge University Press, 1997).

Thanks Ben. I am heading back up to the states next month so I will definitely look into this more. I am interested on how they could argue this.

Ron, I just realized you changed your moniker from Enenyace (I was looking for you)

I will get to yours and Benâ??s posts eventually.

Busy week.

[Sargon]

Sure, there were asherah poles dedicated to her, but if she was truly worshipped in the temple then that is in stark contrast with Mormonism, and it effectively undermines any hopes for a connection. The Church does not offer any kind of memorial to her, even in the temple, and it has repeatedly discouraged any kind of worship of her.

I beg to differ. The temple is replete with indications that a Heavenly Mother exists. The name is never given, and she is never directly referred to, but She is there. The teachings of the temple collectively point to her existence. Not only that, but the scriptures do likewise.

Does it matter if we use stylized trees to symbolize her? Not at all. We live and function within our frame of reference, and the temple utilizes symbols from our generation to teach eternal truths. The Israelites functioned in much the same way.

Here is where the apologist plays the game of "Good Israelite, Bad Israelite."

You may not like it, but you better get ready because that is exactly what God does.

There is only one point where he/she could be considered good (the "belief" that God has a wife). The rest of the details are bad... I mean they supposedly received revelation about Asherah's existence, yet managed to get confused over who her husband was, how she was supposed to conduct herself, the proper method of worship, etc. Since when does one revealed truth come with a complete set of incorrect principles?

Due to our position, we can state unhesitatingly that the ancient Israelites living under the Law of Moses did not possess the fulness of the gospel, and that we do. Is it circular reasoning? Yes. But it is what we believe and we must start somewhere. Sure, there were a few prophets who understood, but they lacked the powerful modes of communication that we now have, especially before any sort of centralized government was established. Therefore they faced the impossible task of correcting incorrect ideas about God and his wife.

And what do we really know about ancient Israelite ideas of Asherah? We know she was probably considered his wife/consort by most, but beyond that we know very little. It is unlikely that they clung to Ugaritic tales of her, since they clung to very few Ugaritic tales of El in the absorbance of El characteristics into Yahweh. As Dever has shown, the Israelite Asherah may have orginated with the Canaanite Athirat, but was not the same Goddess. While Athirat was a symbol of sexuality, Asherah was a symbol of fertility and motherhood. This is clearly demonstrated by archaeology, especially the thousands of figurines of her. Also, if Asherah was viewed by ancient Israelites as a sexual deviant as you have described her, we would be sure to read about that in the biased reports of the Yahwists, yet we do not.

Before the centralization of the temple Israelites had more freedom to corrupt and abuse their temples. Archeology also suggests that there was also a different Yahweh for each place of worship. Was that correct practice too? How many times does the Bible condemn them for idolatry and falling away from truth?

Not only their temples, but their doctrines as well. Your statement fits in comfortably with my argument above that while the basic doctrine of a female deity was held by all, it was impossible to ensure that all understood it correctly, especially with the mighty influence of surrounding cultures. I suggest there were few who understood her as we do today, but there were a few. And the vast majority understood her far better than modern Christians do.

The question is not whether or not Israelites believed/practiced these things. I never disputed this. The question is whether or not they were correct to do so. I donâ??t see how the centralization of the temple could be understood as anything other than a good thing. It was the basis for worship of Yahweh alone, which was then carried down through the ages to Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity, and even in Mormonism!!

The centralization of the temple I believe was both a good and a bad thing. It helped solidify a national religion, but it wasn't always correct. As we know the temple more often than not had images of Asherah in it, but at other times she was purged from the temple. Also, as Dever has argued, a centralized temple was very impractical for the nation, and it is extremely unlikely that many regularly traveled to it. Today the LDS Church does not follow that model for the same reason.

It is of no avail because you cannot begin to connect two dots without first establishing them. The first dot is the idea that Heavenly Mother was revealed to Joseph Smith by revelation. There is no evidence that this is so. The Heavenly Mother doctrine progressed in the Church later on, but was never substantiated as much as other rejected doctrines, such as the Adam-God doctrine, which Brigham Young elaborated on publicly on numerous occasions, even claiming God â??revealedâ? it to him.

I know wikipedia isn't the most scholarly source, but they have collected some sources that suggest that there is plenty of evidence this doctrine orginated with Joseph Smith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_Moth...ter_Day_Saints)

There is a fundamental flaw in your comparison of the Heavenly Mother doctrine to the Adam-God doctrine. One of them fits very comfortably within officially canonized LDS beliefs, while one of them does not at all. I suggest that the Adam-God doctrine is only rejected because it contradicts basic LDS principles, while a Heavenly Mother doctrine confirms basic LDS principles.

how many scholars believe the Israelites worshipped Asherah because some prophet among them revealed it as a new doctrine? Iâ??m going to go out on a limb here and say none. Virtually all of them recognize it as a form of assimilation with the former Ugarit religious concept.

That's like asking how many Catholic scholars actually believe there was an apostacy.

To summarize my current understanding:

1) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and other ancient prophets knew the existence of a mother God.

2) The name Asherah was borrowed just as El was

3) The doctrine of Asherah was understood to many varying degrees across all corners of the nation

4) Ancient prophets discouraged the worship of her

5) She was eventually driven out of the minds of Israel after the exile

6) She disappeared until Joseph Smith restored the correct belief in her

Sargon

[e=mc2]

Kevin:

You really canâ??t see the significance of this?

If it wasnâ??t revelation to Smith, it cannot be used as evidence of a restoration (which comes by revelation!) Joseph Smith never once taught this idea.

Do you think that Joseph Smith is the only possible prophet involved in the restoration? Have you so been negative about Mormonism these last few years that you have forgotten more than you have ever learned yet? You mean to think that in Mormonism ONLY Joseph Smith counts as prophet, the rest are mere fluff and worth nothing? Come now Kevin, you please *can* do better than this, when ****will**** you do so?