Elohim And Heavenly Mother

[e=mc2]

Sargon:

Well what do know of what the "Cannanites" exactly believed, and who are these "canaanites"?

And actually, because of Kevin's critiquing my use of Mark Smith, (for which I thank him....... we may have become a tad bit too disagreeable with each other, but I still respect his sharp eye on many things, so I am grateful he is hammering me so I can keep learning) I am yet again re-reading his outstanding book Origins of Israelite Monotheism and Smith says this very term "Canaanites" may not be the best term to use anymore, but we need to be more all inclusive of the entire Western area of all the cultures. Smith suggests using the term "West Semitic" peoples, instead of Canaanite, and even instead of using the term Ugaritic. That's kinda interesting yes?

[Jersey Girl]

Sargon:

And actually, because of Kevin's critiquing my use of Mark Smith, (for which I thank him....... we may have become a tad bit too disagreeable with each other, but I still respect his sharp eye on many things, so I am grateful he is hammering me so I can keep learning) I am yet again re-reading his outstanding book Origins of Israelite Monotheism and Smith says this very term "Canaanites" may not be the best term to use anymore, but we need to be more all inclusive of the entire Western area of all the cultures. Smith suggests using the term "West Semitic" peoples, instead of Canaanite, and even instead of using the term Ugaritic. That's kinda interesting yes?

It *is* a good idea to open oneself up to challenge. I've said that all along and does anyone listen to me?

JG

[e=mc2]

No we don't, and we are repenting speedily dear lady...............

[Jersey Girl]

No we don't, and we are repenting speedily dear lady...............

Repent vehemently please.

[e=mc2]

Well I did realize that you had a good point when you said it is all about belief and not knowledge, ocncerning the ancients. Of course, we can't read their minds, so perhaps they did know, and it makes us squeamish....... I just dunno at this point. I haven't personally talked to Abraham yet myself........

[Jersey Girl]

Well I did realize that you had a good point when you said it is all about belief and not knowledge, ocncerning the ancients. Of course, we can't read their minds, so perhaps they did know, and it makes us squeamish....... I just dunno at this point. I haven't personally talked to Abraham yet myself........

The moment you claim knowledge, you need to produce proof.

[e=mc2]

NOT necessarily. Perhaps I really could care less whether there is proof to my knowledge of what I experience, at least proof for others. Does that make sense?

[Jersey Girl]

NOT necessarily. Perhaps I really could care less whether there is proof to my knowledge of what I experience, at least proof for others. Does that make sense?

Yes, Kerry, it makes sense but when you claim knowledge based on subjective experience, it isn't something you can promote as universal and I think that's where the difference lies. For example, you can claim testimony to "things" LDS based on subjective experience and I can easily do the same based on subjective experience expressing an opposing viewpoint to Mormonism. Who is right? I sent you a PM but it's not from Abraham! lol

Good things to think about, no? It's a good thing to think.

Editing here: When you present a position publicly, I think you either need to qualify it by saying it is what you believe to be true. When you claim it as universal fact, you need to supply evidences that can be universally applied. If that makes sense...

[JasonH]

Did Masonry copy Joseph Smith?

Are we really going to dispute the fact that much has been borrowed from masonry? I never though these comments would spark an entirely different discussion.

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

Actually you have it backwards. The Israelite Asherah could never exist in Mormonism for reasons already provided. She was continuously associated with Baal and sin. Just because it was popular to carry around her figurines, doesnâ??t prove she really existed. Mary appearances are popular in Catholicism, but it doesnâ??t make them true. Thinking of which, if Dan Petersonâ??s Asherah-Nephi argument holds any water, then this would seem to bolster Catholicism, more than any other faith out there. I mean they say flat out that she is the "Mother of God," and they do in fact worship her (hair-splitting about adoration aside). She has also been associated with the tree, which was a common symbol for Asherah.

2) To demonstrate that a Heavenly Mother is not even official LDS doctrine

I never said this wasnâ??t official doctrine. I said it never met the standards of â??official doctrineâ?; standards set by apologists. I've come to believe the recent idea of "official doctrine" was designed to distance the Church from embarrassing teachings, such as Adam-God. My comment was just an anecdote that shows how heavenly mother is becoming less clandestine and more visible and popular, now that word has gotten out that biblical scholarship is entertaining the idea of a married God.

and therefore we should not be excited by archaeological and textual conclusions that appear to support LDS ideas.

You can be as excited as you want, just donâ??t overstate the evidence to produce sloppy apologetics. Is that too much to ask? Again, stop worrying about debating me and just follow the example set by the FARMS reviewer. I might be the â??disgruntledâ? Mormon but maybe this other guy is worth listening to.

Argument #2 demonstrates that you recognize that the LDS have an advantage

An advantage over what?

you are seeking to discredit our belief in a Heavenly Mother

No, Iâ??m not. I have said nothing to suggest Heavenly mother doesnâ??t really exist in Mormonism. She doesnâ??t exist in the Bible, but that shouldnâ??t bother LDS since many LDS doctrines are not in the Bible anyway. The Church is faith-based. An LDS doctrine doesnâ??t have to be in the Bible.

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.

Youâ??re absolutely right that this would be nonsensical. But you are absolutely wrong in suggesting this is what I am saying. What is it with you guys? I spend pages upon pages explaining what I am saying and you still prefer the straw man routine. If youâ??re not sure about hat I am saying, then ask for clarification. It is getting tiresome having to constantly correct these wild misunderstandings.

You are not going to get into that argument because you know I am right.

If that is what you believe, then prove it. If the forum is really open to such a discussion, then go ahead and lay out your argument. Illustrate how the LDS Temple teaches us about a Heavenly Mother. Iâ??m all ears.

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.

Then elaborate for us. Where do we find Heavenly mother in â??temple teachingsâ?? I've been to the temple, so just color me stupid.

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.

I said nothing about â??teachings.â? This one is of your own making. Whatâ??s with the constant diversions?

Your comment about masonry is a red herring, which you quickly realized.

I quickly realized it? It was just a side comment that is 100% fact. You guys take offense to everything and feel a need to object to every little thing when there is no need.

Many Israelites worshipped her, and Israelite prophets continually discouraged it. Mormonism also recognizes her existence, and Mormon prophets discourage worship of her.

Cute, but you still havenâ??t shown where the prophets acknowledged her existence. You make it seem like the only problem they had was that people worshipped her. If that were true, then there would be no real reason to do away with her altogether. You donâ??t delete a god just because people are worshipping inappropriately. This is like saying if Mormons started worshipping Heavenly Mother, the Church would just get rid of all its literature that mentions her and then start associating her with Satan.

It is impossible to prove to you that Abraham learned of a Heavenly Mother through revelation

But it is possible to demonstrate that Abraham claimed to have â??learnedâ? of her via revelation. But you cannot even demonstrate he accepted her at all. It is pointless to argue that she was until redactors removed her. If the redactors were really that terrified of her they could have removed her from the texts altogether. And if they were merely fabricating the biblical texts that rebuked Asherah, then they would have been better served attributing these denunciations to Abraham, Noah, Ezekiel, etc.

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.

It bolsters nothing since Yahweh in Mormonism is Jesus. Jesus is not married to Heavenly Mother - He is her Son. That is a huge difference that nobody here wants to acknowledge. Instead, we gets all sorts of apologetic maneuvering in cross-referencing irrelevant verses that suggest Yahweh was consider El; as if this somehow resolves the problem.

the concept of El having a wife was again taught, this time by a boy from New York.

Nope. Assuming Joseph Smith really accepted a belief in a heavenly mother, and assuming he was behind the 1845 endowment ceremony, then he believed she was the wife to a deity named Elohim, not El. Elohim is not a proper name. It is a general name used to refer to any deity â?? even demons! The endowment clearly names the deities by their proper names, according to Mormonism. But the fact is Joseph Smith didnâ??t know God the Father as El. He said his name was elohim, which has been the popular name for God in Rabbinic Judaism since his day. Joseph Smith probably learned of this from his Hebrew lessons and then applied it to his own faith. Whether it is right or wrong, it isnâ??t supported by scholarship.

Because Samuel participated in the shrines of Asherah.

Excuse me?

1 Samuel 7:3-4 Then Samuel spoke to all the house of Israel, saying, "If you return to the LORD with all your heart, remove the foreign gods and the Asherah from among you and direct your hearts to the LORD and serve Him alone; and He will deliver you from the hand of the Philistines." So the sons of Israel removed the Baals and the Asherah and served the LORD alone.

1 Samuel 12:10-11 "They cried out to the LORD and said, 'We have sinned because we have forsaken the LORD and have served the Baals and the Asherah; but now deliver us from the hands of our enemies, and we will serve You.' "Then the LORD sent Jerubbaal and Bedan and Jephthah and Samuel, and delivered you from the hands of your enemies all around, so that you lived in security.

You were saying?

Jeremiah appeared to be at least impatiently tolerant of those who revered her

Jeremiah 44:1-4 The word that came to Jeremiah for all the Jews living in the land of Egypt, those who were living in Migdol, Tahpanhes, Memphis, and the land of Pathros, saying, "Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, 'You yourselves have seen all the calamity that I have brought on Jerusalem and all the cities of Judah; and behold, this day they are in ruins and no one lives in them, because of their wickedness which they committed so as to provoke Me to anger by continuing to burn sacrifices and to serve other gods whom they had not known, neither they, you, nor your fathers. 'Yet I sent you all My servants the prophets, again and again, saying, "Oh, do not do this abominable thing which I hate."

Sounds to me like Jeremiah placed blame on the idolatrous Israelites, just the same as the â??redactorsâ? did.

In this context, the respondents were clearly Asherah worshippers, as they referred to their God as the â??Queen of Heaven.â? Jeremiah continued to refer to their actions as "evil" and "abominable." How did you manage to squeeze â??impatient toleranceâ? out of Jeremiah 44?

Elijah spared the prophets of Asherah while slaughtering the prophets of Baal.

The narrative is somewhat ambiguous I think. Verse 19 gathers 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Asherah, and verse 40 says Elijah slew the prophets of Baal after their god failed to show himself. It seems only Baal was challenged since verse 22 contrasts the mismatch between Elijah and 450 of Baalâ??s prophets. Why not make the contrast greater with 850? Since Baal was a warrior God whose attributes resembled Yahwehâ??s, this might explain why only he was challenged. Yet, this begs the question: so why invite the Asherah prophets to the event at all? Maybe it was taken for granted that Asherah had no power or didn't really exist.

It could also be implied that the other prophets were included in the slaughter since Asherah was also considered the consort of Baal. If we assume they were not included simply because there is no mention of them in verse 40, then what do we do with verse 22 which also avoids mentioning them?

But if you are right and this provides evidence that Asherah worship was tolerated, then it pretty much flies in the face of the "redactor did it" argument. How could they let this one slide?

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.

Soâ?¦ let's see.

Asherah poles appeared in high places. Saul prayed at a high place. Therefore Saul tolerated Asherah.

Does that about sum it up? Not only is it faulty logic, but it relies on 1 Samuel chapter 9, and avoids dealing with 1 Samuel chapter 7 (emphasis mine):

1 Samuel 7:3-4 Then Samuel spoke to all the house of Israel, saying, "If you return to the LORD with all your heart, remove the foreign gods and the Asherah from among you and direct your hearts to the LORD and serve Him alone; and He will deliver you from the hand of the Philistines." So the sons of Israel removed the Baals and the Asherah and served the LORD alone.

So the context suggests that the high places at that time were cleansed of Asherah poles.

As I suggested above, there were prophets who tolerated and even participated in reverencing her.

No they didnâ??t. Your examples above are weak and/or out of context.

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.

As I said, the characteristics of the same character are 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. You seem to be operating under the delusion that the Ugaritic Asherah, Athirat, was not referred to as a fertility goddess. According to Jordanâ??s Encyclopedia of God, p32.-->:Athirat: a Western Semitic (Canaanite) fertility goddess.

Fertility control over the world was a prize amidst the cosmic battles between Baal and El. Athirat was consort to both. Later in Israel she becomes a consort to Yahweh, who takes control over everything. Makes sense. But there is no reason to believe Asherah in Israel was a completely different deity from the Asherah at Ugarit â?? not as far as attributes go anyway.

Exactly, and you have just refuted your previous argument.

??

Iâ??m not convinced anyone here, aside from Ben, realizes what my argument actually is. Comments like these arenâ??t encouraging.

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

Again, you simply donâ??t know what youâ??re talking about. As I illustrated above, Athirat was also a fertility goddess, so using this to show they are polar opposites from another, is self-defeating. According to Judith Hadley, â??Athirat did have fertility characteristicsâ?¦ there is therefore little difficulty in admitting the fertility characteristics of both Athirat and Asherah, especially considering that in the ancient Near East the same attribute is often shared by more than one deity.â? (Judith Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess, Cambridge University Press, p.9)

[Jersey Girl]

Jason H.

The Israelite Asherah could never exist in Mormonism for reasons already provided. She was continuously associated with Baal and sin. Just because it was popular to carry around her figurines, doesnâ??t prove she really existed.

This is exactly where I'm coming from though I probably haven't made as great an effort as I could to express it. I don't see how Asherah can be legitimately be separated from Baalism in order to make what one feels is a righteous claim to mother god. Where does one draw the line between the righteous claim and the clear condemnation of Baalism found in the OT?

Further how does this fit with the NT warning to avoid the appearance of evil?

Editing again: As a critic of the LDS church, when I see someone who is Mormon making claim to Asherah who essentially hails from the cult of Baalism, it is too easy for critics (not necessarily me in this case) to single that out as reinforcing the concept of Mormonism as cult. I think that apologist need to be aware of that and either be prepared to not care about it or to deal with it in some form. Not saying that to offend anyone, just offering insights.

[Zakuska]

Sargon:

And actually, because of Kevin's critiquing my use of Mark Smith, (for which I thank him....... we may have become a tad bit too disagreeable with each other, but I still respect his sharp eye on many things, so I am grateful he is hammering me so I can keep learning) I am yet again re-reading his outstanding book Origins of Israelite Monotheism and Smith says this very term "Canaanites" may not be the best term to use anymore, but we need to be more all inclusive of the entire Western area of all the cultures. Smith suggests using the term "West Semitic" peoples, instead of Canaanite, and even instead of using the term Ugaritic. That's kinda interesting yes?

Yes! So what we are really dealing with is the east side verses the west side. The wrong side of the tracks... or in this case... the wrong side of the Jordan.

[e=mc2]

For JasonH:

I can actually agree with you that Asherah herslef is *not* "Heavenly MOTHER" as we Mormons would understand her. What she personifies is the idea of a female Goddess. But as a restoration in Mormonism, no Asherah is not it. The principle...... the principle of a Heavenly Mother is very fine with me, and it is to the principle that I have gotten rather overly zealous and excited about. I believe I did get sloppy with the details of who was what, and how was which ( ), but I conflated the principle, with some specifics that are incorrect. I shall rectify that. Thanks for your patience in pointing it out to me. I don't mean to be dense, I am just dense that's all.......

And I can also see how this can come across as bad apologetic, and I don't want to make it bad apologetic, anymore than you do. So again, I shall go back, re-read, and re-assess yet again, how I present the materials.

[Jersey Girl]

For JasonH:

I can actually agree with you that Asherah herslef is *not* "Heavenly MOTHER" as we Mormons would understand her. What she personifies is the idea of a female Goddess. But as a restoration in Mormonism, no Asherah is not it. The principle...... the principle of a Heavenly Mother is very fine with me, and it is to the principle that I have gotten rather overly zealous and excited about. I believe I did get sloppy with the details of who was what, and how was which ( ), but I conflated the principle, with some specifics that are incorrect. I shall rectify that. Thanks for your patience in pointing it out to me. I don't mean to be dense, I am just dense that's all.......

And I can also see how this can come across as bad apologetic, and I don't want to make it bad apologetic, anymore than you do. So again, I shall go back, re-read, and re-assess yet again, how I present the materials.

See!!! Challenge is good, it revises and refines. Mega thumbs up to this post, Kerry!

(yes, I cheered on an apologist who wishes to improve what they produce. Live with it.)

[Ron Beron]

Jason H.

This is exactly where I'm coming from though I probably haven't made as great an effort as I could to express it. I don't see how Asherah can be legitimately be separated from Baalism in order to make what one feels is a righteous claim to mother god. Where does one draw the line between the righteous claim and the clear condemnation of Baalism found in the OT?

The reason you are having difficulty in accepting this is because you apparently do not understand the process of subsumption practiced by all society that have taken over a previous culture. While the Levantine peoples known as Canaanites certainly worshipped Ba'al and his consort, Asherah it is equally accurate to state that as the Israelites gained more and more power within Canaan they subsumed the authority of Ba'al under their own deities such as El and Ya. The incorporation of Asherah as a secondary deity was also subsumed, albeit under different function and perhaps duties, cultic practices and/or folk religion. Ba'alism was condemned not because it was an inaccurate belief, but because it interfered with the beliefs of the new religion. While the names changed the figures remained pretty much the same.

[Ron Beron]

For JasonH:

I can actually agree with you that Asherah herslef is *not* "Heavenly MOTHER" as we Mormons would understand her. What she personifies is the idea of a female Goddess. But as a restoration in Mormonism, no Asherah is not it. The principle...... the principle of a Heavenly Mother is very fine with me, and it is to the principle that I have gotten rather overly zealous and excited about. I believe I did get sloppy with the details of who was what, and how was which ( ), but I conflated the principle, with some specifics that are incorrect. I shall rectify that. Thanks for your patience in pointing it out to me. I don't mean to be dense, I am just dense that's all.......

And I can also see how this can come across as bad apologetic, and I don't want to make it bad apologetic, anymore than you do. So again, I shall go back, re-read, and re-assess yet again, how I present the materials.

Don't apologize Kerry, you're doing the yeoman's duty. People assume that because we advocate an idea that was practiced eons ago we have it in our minds that we actually believe in it. The truth is that these are archetypes of societal belief. What was believed thousands of years ago isn't too different than what we believe today. I think whatever societal and cultural evolution we have gained is still overshadowed by our past and will continue to be so in the future.

[JasonH]

For those trying to find Asherah in the Bible, she was usually translated "grove" or "groves" in the KJV. She is mentioned about 40 times. Here are the relevant passages:

Exodus 34:10-14 Then God said, "Behold, (I am going to make a covenant Before all your people (I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all the earth nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you. "Be sure to observe what I am commanding you this day: behold, I am going to drive out the Amorite before you, and the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite. "Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst. "But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherah --for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God

Deuteronomy 7:1-6 When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. "For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. "But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherah, and burn their graven images with fire.â?For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. (Asherah also rejected in Deut 12:3;16:21)

Judges 2:11-14 Then the sons of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD and served the Baals, and they forsook the LORD, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods from among the gods of the peoples who were around them, and bowed themselves down to them; thus they provoked the LORD to anger. So they forsook the LORD and served Baal and the Asherah. The anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and He gave them into the hands of plunderers who plundered them; and He sold them into the hands of their enemies around them, so that they could no longer stand before their enemies.

Judges 3:5-8 The sons of Israel lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; and they took their daughters for themselves as wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods. The sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgot the LORD their God and served the Baals and the Asherah. Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, so that He sold them into the hands of Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia; and the sons of Israel served Cushan-rishathaim eight years.

Judges 6:25-30 Now on the same night the LORD said to him, "Take your father's bull and a second bull seven years old, and pull down the altar of Baal which belongs to your father, and cut down the Asherah that is beside it; and build an altar to the LORD your God on the top of this stronghold in an orderly manner, and take a second bull and offer a burnt offering with the wood of the Asherah which you shall cut down." Then Gideon took ten men of his servants and did as the LORD had spoken to him; and because he was too afraid of his father's household and the men of the city to do it by day, he did it by night. When the men of the city arose early in the morning, behold, the altar of Baal was torn down, and the Asherah which was beside it was cut down, and the second bull was offered on the altar which had been built. They said to one another, "Who did this thing?" And when they searched about and inquired, they said, "Gideon the son of Joash did this thing." Then the men of the city said to Joash, "Bring out your son, that he may die, for he has torn down the altar of Baal, and indeed, he has cut down the Asherah which was beside it."

Judges 10:6-7 Then the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, served the Baals and the Asherah, the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the sons of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines; thus they forsook the LORD and did not serve Him. The anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and He sold them into the hands of the Philistines and into the hands of the sons of Ammon.

1 Samuel 7:3-4 Then Samuel spoke to all the house of Israel, saying, "If you return to the LORD with all your heart, remove the foreign gods and the Asherah from among you and direct your hearts to the LORD and serve Him alone; and He will deliver you from the hand of the Philistines." So the sons of Israel removed the Baals and the Asherah and served the LORD alone.

1 Samuel 12:10-11 "They cried out to the LORD and said, 'We have sinned because we have forsaken the LORD and have served the Baals and the Asherah; but now deliver us from the hands of our enemies, and we will serve You.'"Then the LORD sent Jerubbaal and Bedan and Jephthah and Samuel, and delivered you from the hands of your enemies all around, so that you lived in security.

1 Kings 14:15,22-23 "For the LORD will strike Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water; and He will uproot Israel from this good land which He gave to their fathers, and will scatter them beyond the Euphrates River, because they have made their Asherah, provoking the LORD to angerâ?¦Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked Him to jealousy more than all that their fathers had done, with the sins which they committed. For they also built for themselves high places and sacred pillars and Asherah on every high hill and beneath every luxuriant tree.

1 Kings 16:32-33 So he erected an altar for Baal in the house of Baal which he built in Samaria. Ahab also made the Asherah Thus Ahab did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel than all the kings of Israel who were before him.

1 Kings 18: 17-19 When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, "Is this you, you troubler of Israel?" He said, "I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father's house have, because you have forsaken the commandments of the LORD and you have followed the Baals.â?Now then send and gather to me all Israel at Mount Carmel, together with 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of the Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table."

2 Kings 13:6 Nevertheless they did not turn away from the sins of the house of Jeroboam, with which he made Israel sin, but walked in them; and the Asherah also remained standing in Samaria.

2 Kings 17:16 They forsook all the commandments of the LORD their God and made for themselves molten images, even two calves, and made an Asherah and worshiped all the host of heaven and served Baal. (Asherah also rejected in 2 Kings 18:4; 21:3,7; 23:-7; 23:14-15)

2 Chronicles 14:3 For he took away the altars of the strange[gods], and the high places, and brake down the images and cut down the Asherah. (Asherah is further rejected in 2 Chr 15:16; 17:6;19:3;24:18;31:1-3;33:19; 34:3-7)

Isaiah 17:8 And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect [that] which his fingers have made, either the Asherah, or the images.

Isaiah 27:9 By this therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged; and this [is] all the fruit to take away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones that are beaten in sunder, the Asherah and images shall not stand up

Jeremiah 17:1-4 The sin of Judah [is] written with a pen of iron, [and] with the point of a diamond: [it is] graven upon the table of their heart, and upon the horns of your altars; Whilst their children remember their altars and their Asherah by the green trees upon the high hills. O my mountain in the field, I will give thy substance [and] all thy treasures to the spoil, [and] thy high places for sin, throughout all thy borders. And thou, even thyself, shalt discontinue from thine heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, [which] shall burn for ever. (Asherah also rejected as the "Queen of heaven" throughout Jeremiah 44)

Mic 5:14 And I will pluck up thy Asherah out of the midst of thee: so will I destroy thy cities.

Joaish as taught by the Church

"What kind of person was King Josiah? (2 Kings 22:2; 2 Kings 23:25. Note: The David mentioned in 2 Kings 22:2 is King David, who was Josiahâ??s forefather, not his literal father. Josiahâ??s father was Amon.) Explain that Josiahâ??s father was a wicked king who was killed by his servants when Josiah was eight years old. Josiah inherited the throne, and he was a righteous king."

How had the people shown they had forgotten the Lordâ??s laws? (2 Kings 22:16â??17.) How did King Josiah abolish idol worship and the other evil practices of his people? (2 Kings 23:4, 24â??25.)

How did King Josiah help his people repent of their sins? (2 Kings 23:2â??3.) What made the people realize they had done wrong? Explain that reading the scriptures taught the people the Lordâ??s ways. Because the book of the laws and covenants had been lost, the people had forgotten the commandments and had been led astray. How can the scriptures help us? What habits can we develop that will help us remember Godâ??s words? (See enrichment activity 4.)

Here is another Church lesson on the matter

My point is that the Church has traditionally accepted the biblical accounts. There is no indication the Church believes these accounts to have been doctored by agenda-driven redactors. Josiah is not painted as a bopy out for his own interests; he is a "righteous king" who really did do God a service in stopping idolatry. And a big piece of that idolatry was Asherah.

[Sargon]

Jason (What is your real name anyway? Kerry keeps calling you Kevin and it's confusing me.),

If you are concerned that perhaps we LDS are missing the boat entirely as to what your argument specifically is, it might be in your interest to summarize for us then what you would like for us to understand. If this is all:

The Israelite Asherah could never exist in Mormonism...

Then I certainly do not have any reason to disagree. As Kerry has also explained, I don't think that Asherah as commonly believed in and worshipped by the Israelites represents our modern day belief in a Heavenly Mother. Asherah to the common Israelite was the wife of God, but beyond that it is unlikely the masses understood her as we do.

I believe that Abraham and other prophets believed in a sort of Heavenly Mother, but understood her to be peripheral and certainly did not give her the place that later Israelites did in their theology. So why do we even talk about her? I think there are a couple of reasons:

1) We are curious to know if the belief in a female deity at least in some form can be traced to Abraham or another prophet

2) We are willing to note the differences between Israelite Asherah, and Canaanite Asherah, which might point to a deliberate modification made perhaps by Abraham or another prophet.

3) If we can see these links we have a case for Heavenly Mother being believed in by the prophets

One of my biggest pet peeves is when we try to debate too many aspects of the argument at the same time. Therefore instead of responding to you entire post at once, I think it best to dwell on one piece at a time.

Can we trace belief in Asherah, a female deity of some sort, to Abraham? I think that it is possible. We can see a link, however unclear it is.

Gen 12:6-8, NKJV

6) Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land.

7) And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

After leaving his homeland, the first place Abraham is said to have stopped in Canaan is "the place of Sichem", or the holy place of Sichem in hebrew. Obviously a pre-Israelite shrine, where pre-Israelite religion was practiced. Then we have reference to a terebinth tree. Is it an error to suspect a link between this tree and the tree iconography of Asherah? Abraham was at a pre-Israelite shrine, where Athirat in some way would have been understood. Note that an altar was built near this tree.

Genesis 13:18

Then Abram moved his tent, and went and dwelt by the terebinth trees of Mamre, which are in Hebron, and built an altar there to the LORD.

Again, an altar is built near a tree.

Is there any correspondence between these trees and Asherah? Nothing I can solidly point out, but I know of no other religious reason for why a tree would be associated with worship, especially in a culture that presumably worshipped Asherah.

Genesis 21

32 Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba. So Abimelech rose with Phichol, the commander of his army, and they returned to the land of the Philistines.

33 Then Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there called on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God.

34 And Abraham stayed in the land of the Philistines many days.

Once more, a tree appears to be an important element of worship. Could it represent something other than Asherah? Possibly. Dever emphasizes the presence of this tree in his book, and the obvious reason is because it relates to Asherah. In a land where Asherah was symbolized by a tree, Abraham sure liked trees when he worshipped.

What does this mean? I don't think it means that Abraham necessarily worshipped Asherah the goddess of the pre-Israelites. We do know that Abraham worshipped a god he called El, and if we believe that Abraham was a true prophet then we must conclude that Abraham incorporated what appropriate pre-Israelite terms and symbols that he could, while excluding the inappropriate ones. One that he does not exclude is the symbolism of a tree.

What I am proposing is that Abraham, a true prophet of God, utilized the culture around him and adapted their symbols and myths to practice and communicate his own true revealed religion. He kept the name El, he used their shrines, and he incorporated the sacred trees. Why did he incorporate the sacred trees?

Note that I am operating from the premise that Abraham is a true prophet, and that a true God did reveal himself to him.

You are free to disagree with the tentative links I have demonstrated. Perhaps after this piece of the puzzle has been dealt with we can discuss the Asherah cult tolerance and even participation in by later prophets.

Sargon

BTW: Bro. Shirts did you ever the PM I sent you about a week ago?

[JasonH]

For the record, my position has taken a complete 180 degree turn on this issue over the past couple of years or so. I have a hard time believing every single reference to asherah was tinkered with. Is there absolutely no confidence we can place in the biblical text whatsoever? As I consider Mormonism a â??biblicalâ? faith I really donâ??t want to go down that road, because I have some sense of where it will takes us.

Now let me say this. I do believe a case can be made that the Josiahn priests were beneficiaries of the religious reform â?? it meant all income was funneled to the single temple at Jerusalem and Deut 17:8-13 says that instruction given by the temple priests must be followed without question. However, that hardly proves they conspired and planned the reform by lying about having found the book of Deuteronomy in the Temple. By that logic, Joseph smith invented his own experiences because it benefited him as well.

Now to me, abolishing Asherah makes no sense if she was truly the wife of God. Even the monarchy was very aware of possible divine retribution if the gods felt insulted. But Asherah seemed to be a cult phenomenon â?? very popular at that - especially among the women. Israelites were constantly being warned about marrying women from other cultures because they would be encouraged to sacrifice to their foreign gods. This suggests Asherah was gradually imported from outside.

Also, I canâ??t help but reiterate the point about numerous Yahwehâ??s. Josiah has to be given credit for taking care of this mess. As Barker noted,

There had been local Yahwehs; there had been a Yahweh in Hebron to whom Absalom had made a vow whilst he was in Geshur (2 Sam 15:7), and there had been a Yahweh in Zion whom the psalmist extolled (Ps 99:2). A Yahweh in Samaria and a Yahweh in Teman are mentioned in eight-century inscriptions (Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israelâ??s Second God, p.50.)

Now thatâ??s a lot of Yahwehs.

A few years ago I also got excited about the notion that all of the Asherah references were fudged by a Deuteronomist redactor. But the more I studied this the more skeptical I became. Whybray played a major part in the way my thinking has changed. He wasnâ??t going to have the JEDP pushed on him either, no matter how popular it became in academia. The more I hear arguments for it, the more it just seems like scholars just take similar parts of the Bible and assume a single source author, and then as evidence for the thesis, use the similarities to support the theory. This is circular reasoning at its finest. Of course, there is more to it than that, but it seems the counter-evidence isnâ??t really considered much, as this trendy notion in scholarship has run amuck.

For instance, it is assumed that all the anti-Asherah verses are products of a single author ( the â??deuteronomistâ?). Why? Because they all say the same thing about asherah! As if it is impossible that numerous biblical authors could reiterate the same point. 1 Kings is also considered part of the D, why? Well, 1 Kings 13 contains a prophecy about King Josiah. Since prophecies donâ??t really happen- a premise assumed by most textual critics- this must have been a product from Josiahâ??s time. I guess scholars think the priests invented this prophecy about him so that the king would accept the book without question. Further, the similarities in descriptions between Moses in Deuteronomy, and Josiah in 1 Kings, means the two books were written by the same author! I mean it is just impossible to envision a scenario where a subsequent author borrows the same exact phrase found in a previous scripture, right?

Can you imagine what would happen if we applied this logic to the Book of Mormon?

[Zakuska]

JasonH quoted this:

"What kind of person was King Josiah? (2 Kings 22:2; 2 Kings 23:25. Note: The David mentioned in 2 Kings 22:2 is King David, who was Josiah’s forefather, not his literal father. Josiah’s father was Amon.) Explain that Josiah’s father was a wicked king who was killed by his servants when Josiah was eight years old. Josiah inherited the throne, and he was a righteous king."

How had the people shown they had forgotten the Lord’s laws? (2 Kings 22:16–17.) How did King Josiah abolish idol worship and the other evil practices of his people? (2 Kings 23:4, 24–25.)

How did King Josiah help his people repent of their sins? (2 Kings 23:2–3.) What made the people realize they had done wrong? Explain that reading the scriptures taught the people the Lord’s ways. Because the book of the laws and covenants had been lost, the people had forgotten the commandments and had been led astray. How can the scriptures help us? What habits can we develop that will help us remember God’s words? (See enrichment activity 4.)

My question is... how could Josiah be a "righteous" King... if he slew all the priests?

Once more, a tree appears to be an important element of worship. Could it represent something other than Asherah? Possibly. Dever emphasizes the presence of this tree in his book, and the obvious reason is because it relates to Asherah. In a land where Asherah was symbolized by a tree, Abraham sure liked trees when he worshipped.

And don't forget Christ's love/hate relationship with arboreal plants life as well.

Ezek. 17: 24

24 And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have spoken and have done it.

Luke 6: 43-44

43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

[Sargon]

And don't forget Christ's love/hate relationship with arboreal plants life as well.

Ezek. 17: 24

24 And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have spoken and have done it.

Luke 6: 43-44

43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

Zak,

Im not sure how exactly this fits within the context of the discussion. Maybe you could expound?

Thanks.

Sargon

[Sargon]

Also, I canâ??t help but reiterate the point about numerous Yahwehâ??s. Josiah has to be given credit for taking care of this mess. As Barker noted,

Now thatâ??s a lot of Yahwehs.

Is it unreasonable to believe that just as Yahweh held different titles, attributes, and was understood in varying ways at different times and in different places, that Asherah existed in Israel likewise?

If there was only one correct way to understand Yahweh, and all others should have been abolished, is it reasonable that Asherah should be viewed the same way?

Sargon

[Zakuska]

We are talking about Asherah (being represented by the Tree/groves etc.) What I find intresting is Christ using trees to represent Humans planted in the Garden of God. If Humans can be represented by trees. Why cant Asherah being represented by trees also represent an actual living breathing Goddess?

[Kevin Christensen]

JasonH aka Kevin says:

My point is that the Church has traditionally accepted the biblical accounts. There is no indication the Church believes these accounts to have been doctored by agenda-driven redactors. Josiah is not painted as a bopy out for his own interests; he is a "righteous king" who really did do God a service in stopping idolatry. And a big piece of that idolatry was Asherah.

However CES materials depict the situation, I find that the scriptures encourage me to take a better look at what happened and why. And if it happens that CES materials aren't particularly critical and insightful on this point, D&C 1 sets the proper expectations for me ("inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest..."). We can ask what is taught in CES, and also why. Somethings are taught because no one gave the issue much thought. In such a case, how much authority does the "Authority" label really deserve? Those on the committees uncritically accept the scriptural account in 2 Kings at face value. That may not be a sin, but it also does not guarentee insight and authority. Differences between Kings and Chronicles are ignored. Jeremiah's involvement and approval seems to be taken for granted. Outside materials such as 1 Enoch and the Community Rule, and the other sources Margaret brings in don't even show up on the radar. And no one gives the relation of the Book of Mormon to the reform any serious thought. Certain questions did not occur to them. Things may change as the questions get asked. (For instance, the Dean of Religion at BYU gave my Barker Occasional Paper to his faculty. )

In the past few decades, Josiah's reform has received more and more attention from scholars, and his reign turns out to be critical for the formation of Bible. The first thing I personally read that gave signicant notice to Josiah was Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? He observes that formation of an edition of the Deuteronomist History specifically collected and edited to celebrate Josiah. He observes the catastrophe and crisis of his death.

Margaret, following Van Seters, noticed that everything that Josiah reformed had been part of the religion of the patriarchs. She adds more observations, noting that "Josiah's changes concerned the high priests, and were thus changes at the very heart of the temple." Several points stand out. The high priest was no longer "the anointed" (that is, the Messiah), and the sacred calendar in the Deuteronomic Calendar does not contain a Day of Atonement. The people are no longer to consult with with anyone who claims to reveal the mysteries of heaven through visions in the Holy of Holies. All they need to know is written down in a book. They removed the Tree of Life from the temple and burned it. Wisdom and the associated visions and divine feminine was explicitly rejected, and replaced by a law book and strict monotheism. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jacob, and 1 Enoch all describe the blindness that went with the reform.

After reading Barker's work, I decided to reconsider Jeremiah's relation to the reform. Among other things, I noticed that Jeremiah is called to be a prophet the year after the reform begins (that is, it is not Jeremiah's reform), and against the very people and institutions who were implimenting the reform at that very time. The kings, the officials, the priests, and the people of the land. These same people of the land happened to be the ones who installed the eight year old Josiah as King after the assassination of his father Amon. The only directly favorable statement that Jeremiah makes about Josiah is that, compared to his son Jehoiakim, he dealt justly with the poor. In several places, he appears to directly criticize the reformers, including their violence, and their corruption of scripture. Where Friedman had noted many places where Jeremiah shows a knowledge of Deuteronomy, and agrees with them on various moral and political issues, I found that Jeremiah directly contradicts the current form of Deuteronomy on exactly the points that Margaret sees as key to the reform, all having to do with the role of the high priest. The place in Jer. 44 where Jeremiah criticizes the baking cakes to the Queen of Heaven seems to me to correspond directly to central issues in his temple sermon (Jer. 7). He was not anti temple, but concerned with those who thought they could buy off God via rituals rather than through moral reform. Sargon astutely noted places where Jeremiah includes Wisdom in his reports of the creation. Jeremiah was not anti- Queen of Heaven any more than he was anti-temple. He was against any forms of religion that came without moral reform.

I also read several recent approaches to Josiah's reform besides Barker's. None of the other scholars consider the material that Barker brings in (such as 1 Enoch), however useful and interesting their books have been. It's not a matter of interpreting the information differently, but of what information even gets evaluated, what questions are even asked, and the overall paradigm applied.

In checking Ezekiel, I noticed that Ezekiel 22 consists of a long diatribe against the same list of people that Jeremiah is called against. Alsyon Von Feldt in FR 19/1 has shown how nicely Ezekiel's vision demonstrates pre-exilic Temple Theology, of the sort rejected by the reformers, and how it all fits in with 1 Nephi. She has a forthcoming Occasional Paper on the Wisdom tradition in the Book of Mormon.

In checking the Book of Mormon, I found that chapter 1 begins with Lehi experiencing exactly the kinds of visions that the reformers were trying to suppress. And when Lehi goes public, he directs his first discourse against exactly the key changes that the reformers made. That is, Lehi proclaims that there is to be a Messiah (that is, an anointed high priest) and the Redemption of the World (that is, a Day of Atonement).

Lehi's and Nephi's visions point directly to the things the reformers rejected. Jacob, Nephi's brother, a temple priest, reaffirms the very things that the reformers rejected (see chapter 4). And then Sherem shows up, preaching a version of Judiasm that corresponds to that of the Reformers. He claims there is no Christ, that no one can know the future, that all people ought to do is to live the Law of Moses.

Personally, I do not see Josiah as "a bopy out for his own interests." He was placed in power by the "people of the land" which seems to refer to the land owners. The form that their edition of Deuteronomy took looked to their interests, making it easier for them to get out of debt, and limiting the power of the king. I think he was sincere, given his education and upbringing. But it seems clear just who provided his education and upbringing. Given that Lehi was around during Josiah's reform, I find it interesting that no one in the Book of Mormon is named Josiah.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Sargon]

Sargon astutely noted places where Jeremiah includes Wisdom in his reports of the creation. Jeremiah was not anti- Queen of Heaven any more than he was anti-temple. He was against any forms of religion that came without moral reform.

I have arrived. I can rest in peace now.

Sargon

[Zakuska]

Sargon astutely noted places where Jeremiah includes Wisdom in his reports of the creation. Jeremiah was not anti- Queen of Heaven any more than he was anti-temple. He was against any forms of religion that came without moral reform.

I have arrived. I can rest in peace now.

Sargon

By grace are ye saved...