Elohim And Heavenly Mother

[e=mc2]

Kevin:

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.

And according to Joseph Smith, Margaret Barker, Marks S. Smith (quit squawking, I'm using him correctly even though you can't stomach it) what we NOW have in the text is doctored with an agenda. Surely you know that an appeal to the Bible alone is mere Fundamentalist will o wisp thinking as getting at truth aren't you?

What the Bible tells us is appropriate and acceptable is what those who wrote it later understood and believed, not necessarily what was believed and understood in ancient Israel.

And by the way, I say this truly sincerely, I hope your kid is all right. It is no fun for a parent to have to have a child in bad pain. I'm sorry to hear about the problem.

[Jersey Girl]

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

I'm sure there is some sort of argumentation term for this but you're wrong. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and other ancient prophets) did NOT know the existence of a mother God.

They believed that a mother God existed. That the ancients believed in the existence of a mother God is not proof of a mother god, it is simply proof of a belief.

Further, I'd like to know how you think your #5 was facilitated. By whom and why.

[Sargon]

I'm sure there is some sort of argumentation term for this but you're wrong. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and other ancient prophets) did NOT know the existence of a mother God.

They believed that a mother God existed. That the ancients believed in the existence of a mother God is not proof of a mother god, it is simply proof of a belief.

I meant exactly what I said. I believe that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew of the existence of a Mother God. I can't prove that to you, but it stems from my belief that Abraham saw in a vision the pre-existence, as recorded in the Book of Abraham.

Further, I'd like to know how you think your #5 was facilitated. By whom and why.

A number of factors, including the intense campaign for strict monotheism after the return. The Jews sought to find a reason for why their God had failed them, so they blamed it on their acknowledgment of the existence of other gods, including Asherah.

Sargon

[Jersey Girl]

Sargon: I meant exactly what I said. I believe that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew of the existence of a Mother God. I can't prove that to you, but it stems from my belief that Abraham saw in a vision the pre-existence, as recorded in the Book of Abraham

With all due respect, Sargon. That's not what you said to begin with. Your revised statement here is much more credible.

[Zakuska]

Well she's not just in the book of Abraham. She's in Genesis and proverbs as well.

[Jersey Girl]

Well she's not just in the book of Abraham. She's in Genesis and proverbs as well.

Would you by any chance, be willing to cherry pick the verses out for us to discuss?

JG

[Zakuska]

Sure... These are the ones I've been able to see from my parusing of the Council in heaven.

The female personification of Lady Wisdom as explained by Margaret Barker.

Proverbs 8

22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his aworks of old.

23 I was set up from aeverlasting, from the bbeginning, or ever the earth was.

24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains bounding with water.

25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a acompass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

Interesting questions to pontificate on:

Who are all these "sons of men" with God in heaven before the earth was formed?

Why are there elussions to divine sex in this verse?

The female aspect of God in Genesis...

Gen. 1: 26-27

26

[Ron Beron]

Would you by any chance, be willing to cherry pick the verses out for us to discuss?

JG

I even wrote a small essay on this...

Shortly before the Babylonian diaspora and upon the Israelites return there seemed to be a shift in understanding of the feminine nature of Israelâ??s deity. Initially mentioned in Psalms and Proverbs the feminine moved from a literal creation to something more ethereal:

QUOTE"He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion." Jer. 10:12

QUOTE"O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches." Ps. 104:24QUOTE"The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens." Prov. 3:19

In all these scriptures the term wisdom or Hebrew, Hokma, is used. She is mentioned here as the goddess of knowledge finding her comparison In the Greek, Athena.

The earliest known mention is from a series of papyrus from the Jewish colony in Elephantine in Egypt.

QUOTEâ??From heaven the peoples are favored; Wisdom is of te gods. Indeed, she precious tot he gods; her kingdom is eternal She has been established by Shamayn; yes, the Holy Lord has exalted herâ?

From a reading in the Assyrian texts she is connected with their god, Baal Shamayn. In Kottsieperâ??s transaction of the above Wisdom is set as the co-ruler with El,

QUOTEâ??...Among the gods, too, she is honored; she shares with her lord the rulership. In heaven is she established, yea, the lord of the holy ones has exalted her.â? (In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible)

Both Sumer and Egypt also had their â??wisdomâ?? deities. Sumer had Nisaba and Egypt had Maâ??at. Both of whom could have served as a model for hokma.

She is shown in Hellenistic writings in the Book of Wisdom as an equivalent of Isis and later for the Hellenistic deity, Sophia.

QUOTEâ?? 3 She adds to nobility the splendor of companionship with God; even the LORD of all loved her. 4 For she is instructress in the understanding of God, the selector of his works. 5 And if riches be a desirable possession in life, what is more rich than Wisdom, who produces all things? 6 And if prudence renders service, who in the world is a better craftsman than she?

7 Or if one loves justice, the fruits of her works are virtues; For she teaches moderation and prudence, justice and fortitude, and nothing in life is more useful for men than these. 8 Or again, if one yearns for copious learning, she knows the things of old, and infers those yet to come. She understands the turns of phrases and the solutions of riddles; signs and wonders she knows in advance and the outcome of times and ages. 9 So I determined to take her to live with me, knowing that she would be my counselor while all was well, and my comfort in care and grief.â?

Solomon relates how he takes her as spouse already spouse of God forming a triad.

In Proverbs 1-9 she is discussed more fully as the daughter of God.

In other parts of the Proverbs she is identified with the scribes, guide to kings and state officials, and as teacher of wisdom.

Within Proverbs there are some remarkable accounts of Wisdom being â??begottenâ? by the Father

QUOTEProverbs 8:22,23The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

While it states that the Lord possessed, in reality the word is closer to create.

How this would have taken place is anyoneâ??s case since a mother is not mentioned. Some have suggested that she was born like Athena, from the head of Zeus or directly from Godâ??s mouth

QUOTESirach 24:3 "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist.

"From eternity, in the beginning, He created me." Sir. 24:9

The interesting aspect of this is that this would make her sister with Yahweh!

QUOTEProv. 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

We also know from these scriptures she was a witness of the Fatherâ??s creations.

QUOTEProv. 8:27-30 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

And having a relationship with humans

QUOTEvs. 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.She was later recast as Sophia and given a different persona. According to Neoplatonic literature and specifically Philo of Alexandria she was treated as Godâ??s hypostasis or divine emanation.

QUOTE

"Wisdom is older than the creation...of the whole universe." Philo, On the Virtues 62

"And who is to be considered the daughter of God but Wisdom, who is the firstborn mother of all things." Philo, Questions in Genesis 4:97

[Fly Fisherman]

How is it "known"?

Jersey Girl

And, JasonH wrote:

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.

From The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html

"All human beingsâ??male and femaleâ??are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents"

The phrase "heavenly parents" means that a mother in Heaven exists. This is doctrine; it is considered revelation and is thus "scripture".

Is this good enough?

[JasonH]

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.

I am not going to get into an argument about how one interprets temple symbolism. Depending on the imagination, one can make symbols mean anything they want. I could argue the Temple teaches us about the sacredness of Swiss cheese, and nobody could really â??refuteâ? me on that, especially in a forum where temple details are not allowed.

It is enough for me to point out that archeology hasnâ??t provided any meaningful connections with Israelite and Mormon temples. So much in the LDS temple has been borrowed from masonry anyway. But the point is, archeology suggests the Israelites actually worshipped her, and Mormonism discourages this.

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.

Start doing what? Trying to prove that a faith-based religion is verified through archaeology? Your comment doesnâ??t explain how the Israelites got the heavenly mother doctrine, if not from Ugarit. Can you point to any evidence that they received this through revelation? Despite Kerryâ??s persistence, simply noting that â??it is thereâ? wonâ??t suffice.

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.

This begs the question, and makes no sense in the process. Lack of dispersion of information never stopped the prophets from correcting false teachings. There is simply no reason to believe the Ancient prophets taught this doctrine.

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.

Right.

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.

But the characteristics of the same character is what we are talking about, and since the Israelite El had all the attributes of the Ugaritic El, and Yahweh retained all the attributes of Baal, I see no reason to assume Asherah became an entirely different deity with Israel.

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.

They were both considered the divine mother. Symbols aside, we donâ??t know what stories, if any, were attributed to the Israelite Asherah. Consistency suggests that the same stories of Athirat would be used to describe Asherah. The Israelites were at least consistent in that. For example, the story of Baal fighting and overcoming Sea and Death are later applied to Yahweh.

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.

This is a huge assumption. Why would we expect to hear about that when the simple argument of idolatry sufficed? She was rejected because she existed in the minds of the Israelites, and this caused problems for the new monotheism. She wasnâ??t rejected because she was a deviant.

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.

But you face the problem here of having no evidence whatsoever, that she was accepted by the OT prophets. It is even a bigger assumption to assert their lack of commentary was due to their inability to successfully teach the masses a correct understanding about her.

I suggest there were few who understood her as we do today, but there were a few.

The wife of a deity named Elohim, whom together procreated the world with humans? Call for evidence please.

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.

How was it wrong?

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.

Right. But what evidence is there they were in the wrong for doing this?

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.

The LDS Church controls all its temples, whereas the religious authorities in Jerusalem had no means to control the temples that had spawned throughout the region.

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.

Plenty of evidence? Come on.

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.

This is irrelevant to the point in me using this comparison. I used it to illustrate just how evidence is treated in apologetics. There is far, far more evidence to suggest a Prophet believed and taught Adam-Godâ?¦ yet it isnâ??t considered true doctrine. There is scant evidence to suggest Joseph Smith believed in a Heavenly Motherâ?¦yet since God having a wife is all the rage in biblical scholarship, the Church decided to come out with a proclamation making it official doctrine.

Further, Adam-God obviously fit quite comfortably with LDS beliefs while it was being taught. Saying it was wrong because it contradicts LDS principles, suggests Brigham Young was an idiot who didnâ??t understand those principles, in which case, we should be asking ourselves how a prophet of the restoration could be so critically wrong. I mean the whole point of the restoration is to show we have something no other church does: divine guidance that cannot lead a Church astray. Brigham Young claimed this was divine truth. But you say it was contrary to LDS principles, so I guess it must be.

I can't help but wonder what would happen if biblical scholarship found out the Ancient Canaanites also believed Adam was God the Father. We'd probably see all sorts of back-peddaling on that one too. Suddenly this would need to be recognized as official doctrine, just so it could be argued that Brigham Young "restored" it.

To summarize my current understanding: 1) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and other ancient prophets knew the existence of a mother God.

But you have not demonstrated any truth to this first premise. Where do Abraham, Isaac and Jacob validate this teaching?

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

Do you have any evidence for this assumption?

4) Ancient prophets discouraged the worship of her

Correct.

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

Not really, but OK.

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

Now there is a huge leap. Joseph Smith restored nothing because he said nothing. It is nowhere in LDS scripture. It is nowhere to be found in Joseph Smithâ??s numerous public discourses. It is nowhere in any first hand statement which says, â??Joseph Smith taught me this.â? The evidence that he actually believed this is based on faulty association, second hand testimony and ad hoc speculation.

[JasonH]

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?

Are you done yet?

If creating one straw man after another is the best you can do, then youâ??re pretty much justifying my criticisms of your method and incapacity to comprehend what you read. How many times have you misrepresented me, just on this thread? When will this type of apologetic method no longer be acceptable?

The claim I am addressing is, and has always been, that Joseph Smith restored this doctrine. Now that you are unable to provide any proof that he ever believed it in the first place, you want to move the goal posts back about twenty miles and suggest that maybe one of the subsequent prophets revealed it instead. And of course, unload on me for not accepting this possibility when I never said anything about it. I am just sticking to the original argument, even if you wonâ??t.

But just for kicks and giggles, Iâ??ll bite. Where is the statement by any subsequent prophet that this doctrine was restored through divine revelation? The closest thing we have is a peripheral comment about heavenly parents in the 1995 proclamation about the family. It should also be noted that this statement came several years after biblical scholarship started reinforcing the notion that Yahweh had a wife. Before 1995 the apologist would call it unofficial doctrine or LDS folklore since there was nothing in scripture about it and the Church never made any public declaration about its truthfulness. It was just a natural assumption in the Mormon scheme of things. Though Joseph Smith didnâ??t reveal it, attempts have been made to attribute it to him.

And according to Joseph Smith, Margaret Barker, Marks S. Smith (quit squawking, I'm using him correctly even though you can't stomach it) what we NOW have in the text is doctored with an agenda. Surely you know that an appeal to the Bible alone is mere Fundamentalist will o wisp thinking as getting at truth aren't you?

Now what is that, misrepresentation # 47, is it? I never appealed to the Bible alone. I am simply noting that it is hypocritical to on one hand claim to be the most â??biblicalâ? faith while at the same time maintaining that the Bible is just a doctored document that tells us nothing about the faith of the patriarchs. The only value it seems to have to LDS apologists is in supporting the popular LDS notion that things were removed and then restored by Joseph Smith. Since scholars agree the Bible has been edited with an agenda, the apologists take this as proof that those were Mormon doctrines which had been excised.

No matter how badly the Bible has been altered, it is still inapprorpriate to call something "biblical" that is overwhelmingly rejected in the Bible. "Biblical" refers to the Bible and it is implied that that which is biblical, is taught in the Bible as true. This is why I bring up what the Bible actually says. I can argue from something that exists while you are arguing with something that doesn't exist: the alleged original manuscripts before they were altered.

And BTW, it was Mark Smith who complained about misrepresentation. One might think he has some insight into this.

What the Bible tells us is appropriate and acceptable is what those who wrote it later understood and believed, not necessarily what was believed and understood in ancient Israel.

But what you cannot demonstrate is that what these later editors believed was wrong. I have already made a case for the centralization. It made perfect sense. So what if King Josiah had spearheaded it? Since when do the common folk get to decide what is divine and true? Could you imagine if the LDS faith allowed enclaves of Mormons around the world to just believe whatever they wanted with no instruction? That would probably be the only choice it would have had then; living in ancient times. There would simply be no means to control the faith from long distances. There were no General Conferences, satellite receptions, or any means of controlling the religious sector that was fanned out through the region. This was the idea behind centralizing worship â?? so it could be better controlled. Tearing down the places of worship and burning them to the ground was probably the best way to clean house back then.

You cannot illicitly place the patriarchs, the prophets in the same belief camp of the folk religion of the general populace. They often criticized the people for idolatry just as those dastardly redactors did. And this is what it really boils down to, isnâ??t it? What the prophets believed. That should give us some idea what is acceptable to God. So if there is no proof that the prophets accepted Asherah, why should we assume the Israelites were justified in doing so? Godâ??s kingdom has never been a democracy so you cannot appeal to majority view. Remember, the common folk were often rebuked for all sorts of crimes against God. They had a tendency towards idolatry and licentiousness. Or maybe those were just doctored verses as a means to discredit them?

And this is the thing really. With this premise that the available texts were edited by biased redactors, you can pretty much create any kind of scenario you want. It is just a game apologists like to play, but that doesnâ??t make it supportable by scholarship. You just use portions of scholarship to suit your own agenda and then recreate the rest with circular reasoning, question begging and wild speculation.

Ultimately, you justify the criticisms I laid out in the opening thread. Ben seemed to think I wasnâ??t characterizing current apologetics properly, but then you came in and made my point. So have others on this thread. I am sure you and Bokovoy would be on the same page too. You guys see proof and evidence around every crack and corner.

I agree with the author of the FARMS review who says this cannot be used to prove a restoration.

And by the way, I say this truly sincerely, I hope your kid is all right. It is no fun for a parent to have to have a child in bad pain. I'm sorry to hear about the problem.

Thanks, but nothing was broken. It turns out he has a thick skull just like his... uh, Mom.

[Zakuska]

It is enough for me to point out that archeology hasnâ??t provided any meaningful connections with Israelite and Mormon temples. So much in the LDS temple has been borrowed from masonry anyway. But the point is, archeology suggests the Israelites actually worshipped her, and Mormonism discourages this.

CFR, thats an interesting feat... since Joseph Smith was involved with Masonry AFTER he instituted the temple ordinances.

This is supported by the following facts-

Section 124 of the Doctrine and Covenants offers noteworthy evidence that the LDS temple was not derived from Masonry. This revelation was written on Jan. 19, 1841, over one year before Joseph became a Mason, yet makes mention of many key elements that would be found in the Nauvoo temple. This list, taken from Matthew B. Brown ("Of Your Own Selves Shall Men Arise," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1998, pp. 97-131, with the citation from pp. 125-126), includes:

* baptisms for the dead (v. 32,33,39)

* washings (v. 39)

* anointings (v. 39)

* the keys of the Holy Priesthood (v. 34,95,97)

* memorials of Levitical sacrifices (v. 39)

* solemn assemblies (v. 39)

* oracles, conversations, statues and judgments (v. 39)

* ordinances that have been kept hidden (v. 40-41)

* the fullness of the priesthood (v. 28).

Did Masonry copy Joseph Smith?

[urroner]

This might be a silly question coming out from nowhere and proceeding back to where it came from, but after Elijah called fire down from Heaven, the priests of Baal were killed, but the priests of Asherah weren't. IIRC, the priests of Asherah weren't at the scene of the contest, but why weren't they killed like the priests of Baal?

[Sargon]

JasonH,

Your strategy throughout this discussion has been:

1) To demonstrate that the LDS idea of Heavenly Mother is incompatible with the views held by ancient Israelites

2) To demonstrate that a Heavenly Mother is not even official LDS doctrine, and therefore we should not be excited by archaeological and textual conclusions that appear to support LDS ideas.

You can't have it both ways. Argument #2 demonstrates that you recognize that the LDS have an advantage, and so you are seeking to discredit our belief in a Heavenly Mother. Essentially what you are saying is "What you don't really believe in is not compatible with ancient religion." It is a nonsensical statement and you need to consider that fact.

I am not going to get into an argument about how one interprets temple symbolism. Depending on the imagination, one can make symbols mean anything they want. I could argue the Temple teaches us about the sacredness of Swiss cheese, and nobody could really â??refuteâ? me on that, especially in a forum where temple details are not allowed.

You are not going to get into that argument because you know I am right. Had we the freedom to openly discuss this issue, you know that the inclusion of a Heavenly Mother in the temple teachings is much more apparent than inclusion of holy swiss cheese. There is a limit to how you can interpret temple teachings. It is not just in symbolism that we find her, but in basic teachings.

It is enough for me to point out that archeology hasnâ??t provided any meaningful connections with Israelite and Mormon temples. So much in the LDS temple has been borrowed from masonry anyway. But the point is, archeology suggests the Israelites actually worshipped her, and Mormonism discourages this.

So what? Should we expect archaeology to show a link between LDS temples teachings and Israelite temple teachings? No. Teachings are intangible abstract ideas. Temples are just buildings where they are taught. Your comment about masonry is a red herring, which you quickly realized. Many Israelites worshipped her, and Israelite prophets continually discouraged it. Mormonism also recognizes her existence, and Mormon prophets discourage worship of her.

Start doing what? Trying to prove that a faith-based religion is verified through archaeology? Your comment doesnâ??t explain how the Israelites got the heavenly mother doctrine, if not from Ugarit. Can you point to any evidence that they received this through revelation? Despite Kerryâ??s persistence, simply noting that â??it is thereâ? wonâ??t suffice.

It is impossible to prove to you that Abraham learned of a Heavenly Mother through revelation, just as it is impossible to prove to you that Moses learned of God through a burning bush. All archaeology can demonstrate to us is that a character named Asherah was considered the consort/wife of Yahweh, which of course does not prove the LDS position, but definantly bolsters it. The how and why they believed in her are questions that neither you nor I can answer.

We might likewise conclude that Abraham never learned of El by revelation, but just believed in the god of the canaanites, and all Israelite religion was a hoax. We are arguing over which faith-based story is more true. What is obvious however, is that approximately 2,500 years after Asherah was driven "underground" as Dever says, the concept of El having a wife was again taught, this time by a boy from New York. Does it prove anything? Only if you already accept that El is a real person, and that Abraham was a true prophet, and that Samuel was too.

Why Samuel? Because Samuel participated in the shrines of Asherah. Jeremiah appeared to be at least impatiently tolerant of those who revered her, and Elijah spared the prophets of Asherah while slaughtering the prophets of Baal. Saul recieved his wisdom from God while participating in worship at a "high place", and the temple at Jerusalem regularly had images of Asherah in them. If you are able to see all that through the polemics of the Yawhist extremist redactors, then you it is easy to see that Asherah was an important element in Israelite religion. If it is necessary we can discuss each of these examples, but I assume you have already heard these arguments.

QUOTE

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.

This begs the question, and makes no sense in the process. Lack of dispersion of information never stopped the prophets from correcting false teachings. There is simply no reason to believe the Ancient prophets taught this doctrine.

As I suggested above, there were prophets who tolerated and even participated in reverencing her. Lack of dispersion of information never stopped the prophets from trying to correct false teachings. But it is obvious their attempts were not successful until after the brutal exile.

QUOTE

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.

But the characteristics of the same character is what we are talking about, and since the Israelite El had all the attributes of the Ugaritic El, and Yahweh retained all the attributes of Baal, I see no reason to assume Asherah became an entirely different deity with Israel.

Unfortunately for you, archaeology is not on your side. Asherah did not inherit the sexual promiscuity of Athirat, as is obvious from her depiction in thousands of figurines.

They were both considered the divine mother. Symbols aside, we donâ??t know what stories, if any, were attributed to the Israelite Asherah.

Exactly, and you have just refuted your previous argument.

Consistency suggests that the same stories of Athirat would be used to describe Asherah.

Archaeology suggests otherwise. She was the symbol of hearth and home, of motherhood and nurture, differing greatly from the symobolism of Athirat.

QUOTE

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.

This is a huge assumption. Why would we expect to hear about that when the simple argument of idolatry sufficed? She was rejected because she existed in the minds of the Israelites, and this caused problems for the new monotheism. She wasnâ??t rejected because she was a deviant.

Why would we NOT expect to read about her sexuality? The authors of the OT wrote intentionally to discredit her.

I gotta run.

Sargon

[Zakuska]

Archaeology suggests otherwise. She was the symbol of hearth and home, of motherhood and nurture, differing greatly from the symobolism of Athirat.

Wow now that is some powerful Imagery!

I'm reminded of a Johhny Depp Movie... Sleepy Hollow. Who'd a thunk those Pagon Protestant Puritians would worship a heavenly Mother.

[Sargon]

Continuing my reply to Jason:

QUOTE

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.

But you face the problem here of having no evidence whatsoever, that she was accepted by the OT prophets. It is even a bigger assumption to assert their lack of commentary was due to their inability to successfully teach the masses a correct understanding about her.

As I mentioned earlier, it might be appropriate to discuss whether or not OT prophets did reject her mere existence.

IF I am correct in believing that many ancient prophets understood El's wife as modern LDS prophets do, we would not expect them to write about her history, nature, or stories just as modern prophets do not. The lack of detail about the history of Asherah from OT prophets fits comfortably within my personal theology, one which I do not intend to prove to you, nor could I. It is a little something called a testimony.

QUOTE

I suggest there were few who understood her as we do today, but there were a few.

The wife of a deity named Elohim, whom together procreated the world with humans? Call for evidence please.

That would involve a long discussion that might derail the topic. But the short answer is that I believe the OT prophets were mostly true prophets of the Lord, and being that I am LDS I believe they had knowledge similar to modern prophets.

QUOTE

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.

Right. But what evidence is there they were in the wrong for doing this?

I can't prove to you whether or not they were morally right or wrong, anymore than I can prove that Christianity is a true religion. But it doesn't matter. What matters is that most of the time the priests who were presumably men of God believed in her and included her in temple worship.

I am not goint to address your concerns that Joseph Smith did not restore this doctrine, and that it is not an official LDS doctrine. That is simply absurd to me, and perhaps at a future date we can tackle it.

To repeat the summary of my beliefs:

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

1) Is not provable at this time

2) Is extremely obvious

3) Is demonstrable

4) Demonstrable

5) Demonstrable

6) Not provable at this time, just like 1

My purpose in making this list is only to summarize my position, not as evidence for anything.

Sargon

[Zakuska]

Sargon,

Can you prove to me that I exist?

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

According to one philosopher, there is a 25% chance that we are nothing more than a tremendously complex "SIMS" game.

[Zakuska]

Cogito, ergo sum

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

But who or what is doing the thinking.

"I am what I am"

[Sargon]

Uh-oh Bro. Christensen is critiquing my ameatur work. I'm nervous.

Sargon

[Ron Beron]

'JasonH' writes,

Start doing what? Trying to prove that a faith-based religion is verified through archaeology? Your comment doesn't explain how the Israelites got the heavenly mother doctrine, if not from Ugarit. Can you point to any evidence that they received this through revelation? Despite Kerry's persistence, simply noting that "it is there" won't suffice.

Dever points to the fact that an Israel made up totally of an exodus from Egypt is untenable. He argues instead for a proto-Israelite occupation of Canaan that co-existed with the Canaanites including those who worshipped a female deity. Therefore, the Israelites never borrowed anything from the Canaanites, but were part and parcel of it. If an exodus ever did anything to Israel it would have been the introduction of Moabite religious practice including the worship of Ya through a divine priesthood.

The wife of a deity named Elohim, whom together procreated the world with humans? Call for evidence please.

While not called Asherah, there grew a theology based on Asherah worship in post-exilic Israel. Prior to the diaspora she was seen as a tangible anthropomorphic figure. Post exile she took on a more philosophical construct. For example, (and I'm borrowing from a previous post)

Jeremiah 10:2 states "He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion." And again in Psalms 104:24, "O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches." And one more in Proverbs 3:19, "The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens."

Here the scriptures are replete with the usage of Hokma or Wisdom. Comparable with the goddess Athena she is seen as a goddess of wisdom or knowledge.

The earliest known mention of this HOKMA is from a series of papyrus from the Jewish colony in Elephantine in Egypt.

"From heaven the peoples are favored; Wisdom is of the gods. Indeed, she precious tot he gods; her kingdom is eternal She has been established by Shamayn; yes, the Holy Lord has exalted her".

From an Assyrian text she is connected with their god, Baal Shamayn. In Kottsieper's transaction of the above Wisdom is set as the co-ruler with El,

"...Among the gods, too, she is honored; she shares with her lord the rulership. In heaven is she established, yea, the lord of the holy ones has exalted her." (In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible)

She is shown in Hellenistic writings in the Book of Wisdom as an equivalent of Isis and later for the Hellenistic deity, Sophia.

" 3 She adds to nobility the splendor of companionship with God; even the LORD of all loved her. 4 For she is instructress in the understanding of God, the selector of his works. 5 And if riches be a desirable possession in life, what is more rich than Wisdom, who produces all things? 6 And if prudence renders service, who in the world is a better craftsman than she?

7 Or if one loves justice, the fruits of her works are virtues; For she teaches moderation and prudence, justice and fortitude, and nothing in life is more useful for men than these. 8 Or again, if one yearns for copious learning, she knows the things of old, and infers those yet to come. She understands the turns of phrases and the solutions of riddles; signs and wonders she knows in advance and the outcome of times and ages. 9 So I determined to take her to live with me, knowing that she would be my counselor while all was well, and my comfort in care and grief."

Solomon in Proverbs 1-9 relates how she is discussed more fully as the daughter of God.

In other parts of the Proverbs she is identified with the scribes, guide to kings and state officials, and as teacher of wisdom.

Within Proverbs there are some remarkable accounts of Wisdom being "begotten" by the Father

Proverbs 8:22,23 "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was."

In further Jewish works she is described as being born from the mouth of God, Sirach 24:3 "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist.

"From eternity, in the beginning, He created me." Sir. 24:9

More importantly we also know from these scriptures she was a witness of the Father's creations.

Prov. 8:27-30 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

And having a relationship with humans

Philo of Alexandria discusses her role in the creation of the universe:

"Wisdom is older than the creation...of the whole universe." Philo, On the Virtues 62

"And who is to be considered the daughter of God but Wisdom, who is the firstborn mother of all things." Philo, Questions in Genesis 4:97

[e=mc2]

Jason H:

Thanks, but nothing was broken. It turns out he has a thick skull just like his... uh, Mom.

Yer all right Kevin........... I'm sorry I am so disagreeable with you, but yer humor is right on....... now then, lets NOT let that wonderful woman of yers read any of that yes?

Your reply is worth pondering over, which I will do, and get back with ya as I can. Thanks for your efforts, I am learning, and I enjoy that, along with everyone else's comments and ideas also. We'll all hack through this one way or the other.

[e=mc2]

Sargon:

Uh-oh Bro. Christensen is critiquing my ameatur work. I'm nervous.

Nervous? I have had our beloved Kevin critique some of my materials also, and I cannot think of a finer gent to do it. It will ONLY strengthen your materials, so relax, you are in good hands with all-Christensen......... (AllState? The commercial? Yeah well, lets just let it go then )

[Sargon]

I had an afterthought. So much emphasis has been placed on what the "Cannanites" believed and how that relates to popular Israelite theology. Well what do know of what the "Cannanites" exactly believed, and who are these "canaanites"?

The group of people who would have had the most influence on Israelite theology would have been those called "canaanites" by the biblical authors who possessed the land into which the Israelites took over. Until the early part of last century we knew very little about what they believed at all, except for extremely biased references in the OT. After the discoveries at Ugarit alot of those references made so much more sense.

But it must be kept in mind that Ugarit lies approximately 300 miles to the north of Jerusalem, approximately the same distance from Jerusalem to metropolitan Egypt. How much of Ugaritic mythology was exactly believed by those inhabiting canaan before the Israelites arrived? We can comfortably conclude that the basics were all there: El, Ashirat(Athirat), Baal, Anat.....But how can we be sure the stories and characteristics of these gods was consistent 300 miles to the south? Ugarit did not control that part of the land ever, and we know that 300 miles in the opposite direction the Egyptians had very different stories about the same characters.

What archaeology tells us is that Asherah was held by Israelite woman to be a goddess with whom they could relate. They looked to her for fertility and as an appropriate alternative to strict Yahweh worship. The prophets abhorred worship of her, but I am unaware of any pre-exilic(or post-exilic for that matter) prophet denouncing her as non-existent. I haven't had the opportunity to search for those kinds of OT denouncements, so I would be interested to know if there are any.

Sargon