A Goddess in the Book of Mormon

[Calm]

That is a fine article Dr. Peterson and I enjoyed reading it. Yet when I read this chapter a slightly different message emerges for me....

I hope that I didn

[Uncertain]

If that's the case, then rejecting an ancient provenance on the grounds that modern provenances are also suggested is begging the question.

Well it's a good thing I'm not doing this. What I am arguing is if a particular passage has multiple reasonable interpretations some consistent with antiquity and some consistent with modern authorship. No strong conclusions either way should be drawn on the basis of the given passage since it is unclear which interpretation is the "correct" one. Hence why the Asherah reading is not strong evidence for antiquity.

It may be a superior reading for that person, but that doesn't mean it's the reading that was intended. I am not particularly convinced when people with little understanding of the ancient world tell me they don't think it fits into the ancient world.

It's a good thing I am not doing this either.

If you wish to argue that then you have to make the argument. The presence of an alternative theory does not, in and of itself, undermine the strength of the Asherah reading. You have to be able to show that one is stronger than the other.

Certainly it does not undermine the strength of the Asherah reading. It casts doubt on whether the Aserah reading is in fact the correct reading of the text. If other readings are equally powerful why should the unbiased outside observer accept the Asherah reading as the normative one? And if a person does not accept the Asherah reading then clearly 1 Nephi 11 is not necessarily referencing some deep connection with the ANE. Furthermore I understood your response to me in post #136 "And you're certainly free to feel that way. I'm certainly not arguing otherwise." (bold added by me). As to be an admission you felt the Yhwh as tree interpretation per Hosea 14:9 to be a reasonable one. But if you want further argument you can engage your fellow Maxwell institute scholar who came to the same conclusion (see link in my first post). Look I am in no way arguing the Asherah reading does not match the ancient world. What I am arguing is it is clearly not the only reasonable way to read this passage as is evidenced by the fact many reasonable people don't read Asherah into the text. If you want to argue the Asherah reading is in fact the only reasonable way to read 1 Nephi 11 I would be interested in reading it.

Best,

Uncertain

[maklelan]

Choose a different syncretism then. Were they Hellenizers?

It's not syncretism that's in view in the pre-exile. Those beliefs were native is Israelite tradition.

I'm skeptical.

I wouldn't call it skepticism. I would call it cynicism. You're not willing to engage the data. You've already told me you don't care what the scholarship says.

Some were pious Jews.

They all thought they were pious. I don't think you can point to a single example of a Hasmonean who was pious according to the biblical standard. That's because biblical piety is really just a synthesis of a wide variety of artificial and rhetorical ideals. We learn about the societies behind the Bible by trying to figure out why they would say certain things, not simply by seeing what they said. What they said often has more to do with what they want others to think and do than with what they really thought and did.

[maklelan]

Well it's a good thing I'm not doing this. What I am arguing is if a particular passage has multiple reasonable interpretations some consistent with antiquity and some consistent with modern authorship. No strong conclusions either way should be drawn on the basis of the given passage since it is unclear which interpretation is the "correct" one. Hence why the Asherah reading is not strong evidence for antiquity.

The only people who think the question is unclear, however, are those who aren't well informed about the ancient Near East. It's not insignificant that all the people here who are professionally trained in that field are in agreement that there is a significant parallel at work here. To respond that the presence of other theories dilutes the strength of this particular theory is fallacious. This theory stands or falls exclusively on its own merits. The presence of other theories in no way influences its legitimacy.

It's a good thing I am not doing this either.

But your criticisms of it either revolve around your lack of awareness of these literary and religious principles in their pre-exilic context, or around the fallacious notion that multiple theories exercise some kind of influence on the individual theories.

Certainly it does not undermine the strength of the Asherah reading. It casts doubt on whether the Aserah reading is in fact the correct reading of the text.

These are mutually exclusive claims. It cannot cast doubt on a theory without undermining its strength.

If other readings are equally powerful why should the unbiased outside observer accept the Asherah reading as the normative one?

As I've said, you've yet to even attempt to show that these other theories are equally powerful.

And if a person does not accept the Asherah reading then clearly 1 Nephi 11 is not necessarily referencing some deep connection with the ANE.

If a person does not accept the reading it only means the person does not accept the reading. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the reading is true.

Furthermore I understood your response to me in post #136 "And you're certainly free to feel that way. I'm certainly not arguing otherwise." (bold added by me). As to be an admission you felt the Yhwh as tree interpretation per Hosea 14:9 to be a reasonable one.

My statement was that I am not arguing that you are not allowed to feel one reading is better than another.

But if you want further argument you can engage your fellow Maxwell institute scholar who came to the same conclusion (see link in my first post). Look I am in no way arguing the Asherah reading does not match the ancient world. What I am arguing is it is clearly not the only reasonable way to read this passage as is evidenced by the fact many reasonable people don't read Asherah into the text.

This does not seem to me to be your argument. You've argued in previous posts that the fact that reasonable people arrive at other conclusions casts doubt on the Asherah reading.

If you want to argue the Asherah reading is in fact the only reasonable way to read 1 Nephi 11 I would be interested in reading it.

I'm not saying it's the only reasonable way to read it. I'm saying that the theory that it was part of the author's intended meaning is one that you've yet to confront with any real logic or evidence. The presence of other theories is irrelevant.

[Uncertain]

But your criticisms of it either revolve around your lack of awareness of these literary and religious principles in their pre-exilic context,

or around the fallacious notion that multiple theories exercise some kind of influence on the individual theories.

(bold added by me)

Hi Maklelan,

This is the core of our disagreement you have constructed a straw man. Here is what I am arguing suppose I am trying to explain a given observation in the real world. Suppose I have two theories each one does an equally good job at explaining the observation but they are mutually exclusive. Now which theory should you accept as the "correct" theory the theory that correctly explains why the observation is the way it is? Yes each theory is independent it stands or falls on how well the theory explains the observation. But when it comes time to choose between theories and pick which one best explains the observation if both of them explain the observation equally well choosing between them is a crap shoot each theory does an equally good job at explaining the observation. In such a situation the best response is to simply choose neither theory because both do an equally good job at explaining the data hence there is no reason at present to choose one over the other. Yes things may change in the future making one theory clearly superior to another but until that happy day arrives agnosticism is the correct choice. Agreed? If you don't agree what is your counter argument?

So yes I agree the Asherah reading stands and falls on it's own merits. But it seems you agree with me the Asherah reading is not the only reasonable way to read the text. Hence we have something like the situation above multiple reasonable ways to interpret the same data. Each reading stands or falls on it's own independent of the others but when it comes to choosing between them it absolutely matters that other competing mutually exclusive readings explain the passage equally as well as the Asherah reading does. How can it not? Are you prepared to argue when choosing between theories it doesn't matter if other competing theories explain the data equally well?

And yes I agree all those trained in the appropriate fields agree the Asherah reading is a strong parallel with the ANE. I have never disputed this but it is not at all relevant to my argument. I am arguing the Asherah reading is not the only reasonable way to read the text hence when it comes time to "pick" which reading i.e(theory) is superior the Asherah reading is not necessarily the superior way to read the text. Do you really wish me to outline why the tree as Yhwh reading is a reasonable way to read the text? Frankly since you yourself provided an example of this pairing happening from the Old Testament I assumed you conceded the tree as Yhwh reading was a reasonable one am I wrong?

Best,

Uncertain

[Daniel Peterson]

Please. And we all know what you meant by that ["a New York farm boy could scarcely have derived what I claim to have noticed in 1 Nephi 11 from his Bible"].

I meant precisely what I said: "A New York farm boy could scarcely have derived what I claim to have noticed in 1 Nephi 11 from his Bible."

You say this kind of thing often.

We shall see:

At the recent FAIR conference you said, "[Theosis/Deification] turns out it is an ancient Christian doctrine. And how do you account for the fact that Joseph Smith came up with that out of nowhere, with no great access to patristic literature or anything like that?" http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/59708/Be-Ready-to-Defend-Faith.html You see?

I do.

The Joseph Smith of 1842-1844, leader of a church and mayor of a sizeable city and editor of a newspaper, was no longer the yokel farm boy of 1828-1829. It's rather a different situation.

But, even so, while you apparently think it likely that Joseph simply absorbed his doctrine of human exaltation from his environment, that doctrine has surprisingly strong support in ancient Jewish and Christian writings and yet has been, for many, many years, one of the very most offensive aspects of Mormonism to the modern Christians who form most of the religious environment of Mormons. (Ed Decker's slick little film The God Makers is merely one illustration of the way in which this doctrine has been a principal target of anti-Mormons since its revelation.)

You point out that some ancient parallel exists, and then you insinuate that similar parallels do not exist in his immediate environment. And you do this, by your own admission, without bothering to explore natural explanations.

There are highly motivated hordes of busy little beavers who are eagerly looking for reductionist environmental explanations of Latter-day Saint scripture, doctrine, and practice.

I never said, of course, that I don't "bother" to "explore natural explanations." (I said what I meant to say, and I really prefer to speak for myself.) I said that I am not a specialist in nineteenth century American religious history. "Natural explanations" of Mormonism are the default setting for any non-Mormons who pay much attention to the subject, and are, by and large, the passionate belief of those critics and apostates who devote themselves at all seriously to the topic. It's not as if I'm writing in a vacuum, without opposition. In fact, quite commonly, I'm explicitly or implicitly responding to critics.

I'll turn your question around on you: How much of your time and energy do you devote to seeking out ancient parallels to Mormon scripture, doctrine, and practice?

Ah yes. Joseph getting these ideas from a ROCK is a much better explanation.

It's a matter of one's judgment of antecedent probabilities. If one judges revelation to be entirely or essentially impossible in a given case, then one will seek for a naturalistic explanation, and will be inclined, if necessary, to accept even a very improbable one rather than to grant the possibility of an alternative that has been deemed impossible.

I imagine this is the sort of time that the unNamed scholar walked away from his conversation with you--or rather, started "plugging his ears."

Perhaps. He describes himself as an atheist, so I don't expect him to gravitate easily toward an explanation resting upon divine revelation. Again, a matter of prior probabilities. Of worldviews or paradigms, if you will.

I imagine you will say the same as I walk away now.

I probably won't say anything at all. It's not that big a deal to me. Who would I be talking about it with?

So be it.

You seem to be a bit angry.

[maklelan]

Hi Maklelan,

This is the core of our disagreement you have constructed a straw man. Here is what I am arguing suppose I am trying to explain a given observation in the real world. Suppose I have two theories each one does an equally good job at explaining the observation but they are mutually exclusive. Now which theory should you accept as the "correct" theory the theory that correctly explains why the observation is the way it is? Yes each theory is independent it stands or falls on how well the theory explains the observation. But when it comes time to choose between theories and pick which one best explains the observation if both of them explain the observation equally well choosing between them is a crap shoot each theory does an equally good job at explaining the observation. In such a situation the best response is to simply choose neither theory because both do an equally good job at explaining the data hence there is no reason at present to choose one over the other. Yes things may change in the future making one theory clearly superior to another but until that happy day arrives agnosticism is the correct choice. Agreed? If you don't agree what is your counter argument?

I don't agree with your analogy because you're trying to impose the scientific method and its accompanying epistemological standards onto literary criticism, which neither follows the scientific method, nor holds the same epistemological standards. Polysemy must be taken into account as well. Many authors draw inspiration for individual statements from multiple sources. Lastly, I don't agree that a suspension of conclusions is the best route. Gathering more data would be the best route. At the same time, I disagree that these competing theories are equally as strong. As I've stated several times, you've simply asserted that. You haven't shown it. You certainly haven't shown that each theory is quantitatively identical to the other in evidentiary strength and explanatory power, so I don't see how the analogy applies there as well.

So yes I agree the Asherah reading stands and falls on it's own merits. But it seems you agree with me the Asherah reading is not the only reasonable way to read the text. Hence we have something like the situation above multiple reasonable ways to interpret the same data. Each reading stands or falls on it's own independent of the others but when it comes to choosing between them it absolutely matters that other competing mutually exclusive readings explain the passage equally as well as the Asherah reading does. How can it not? Are you prepared to argue when choosing between theories it doesn't matter if other competing theories explain the data equally well?

They're not necessarily mutually exclusive, but reasonableness does not necessarily mean strength.

And yes I agree all those trained in the appropriate fields agree the Asherah reading is a strong parallel with the ANE. I have never disputed this but it is not at all relevant to my argument. I am arguing the Asherah reading is not the only reasonable way to read the text hence when it comes time to "pick" which reading i.e(theory) is superior the Asherah reading is not necessarily the superior way to read the text. Do you really wish me to outline why the tree as Yhwh reading is a reasonable way to read the text? Frankly since you yourself provided an example of this pairing happening from the Old Testament I assumed you conceded the tree as Yhwh reading was a reasonable one am I wrong?

It's reasonable, but when you consider that that reading isolates all the qualities and symbols Yhwh happened to have assimilated from Asherah, it makes you wonder what's really in view.

[Daniel Peterson]

There are many things that rest on only one verse, a fine example of which is the doctrine of baptisms for the dead.

Latter-day Saints, of course, believe that the doctrine of baptism for the dead rests upon revelations to Joseph Smith, not on 1 Corinthians 15:29.

Which, incidentally, was practiced in the U.S. by the Ephrata Cloister before the LDS Church.

Maybe it was. I remember reading that in John Brooke's The Refiner's Fire, which don't trust very much.

But I also remember, when he visited me while I was spending a summer at Princeton University around that time, heading out to Ephrata with my friend Bill Hamblin, of the BYU History Department. We looked through the bookshop there, and could find no mention of baptisms for the dead at Ephrata. So we asked some of the guides there. They had never heard of it. Accordingly, I presume that, if baptism for the dead was practiced at the Ephrata Commune, it was far less prominent and central there than it was, say, at Mormon Nauvoo. No guide at Nauvoo would ever look blankly at you if you asked about the subject. Not even one from the Community of Christ.

[Mike Reed]

snip

[Angel asks] tell me what thing thou seest more?

Seth. I see a goodly tree,

And its top very high aloft,

Even to the heaven growing.

And its roots to the lower earth

....

And in the top of that same tree

I do see a sweet Virgin

Sitting in great modesty,

And in her bosom a beautiful child,

As it seems to me so.

Angel. I will tell thee distinctly:

This truly as it is called,

Is the Tree of Life.

The Creation of the World, With Noah

[WalkerW]

Latter-day Saints, of course, believe that the doctrine of baptism for the dead rests upon revelations to Joseph Smith, not on 1 Corinthians 15:29.

Nonetheless, knowing the cultural background of the text can illuminate its meaning (as Dr. Peterson's article did for 1 Nephi). Commenting on 1 Cor. 3:15, John Townsend notes, ""A Shammaitic interpretation of 1 Cor. 3:15 implies a belief on the part of Paul that at the end of the age there would be a final opportunity for some to be saved even from the fires of Gehinnom." Townsend compares it to Rosh ha-Shanah 16b-17a bar. Apparently, the "in between" (not righteous, but not wicked) will suffer in Gehinnom, but eventually be redeemed.

He connects this with Paul's words in 1 Cor. 15:29:

1 Cor. 15:29 has "usually been understood to refer to some form of vicarious baptismal rite intended to benefit somehow those who have died. Such a rite would be meaningless if a man's fate had been fully determined in his lifetime; and in view of this difficulty some commentators have asserted that, although the Apostle tolerated the rite, he did not approve of it. Such a suggestion, however, appears somewhat forced, and a better explanation is that Paul had no reason to condemn the rite because he believed that the final opportunity for salvation would not precede the end of the age." (John T. Townsend, "1 Corinthians 3:15 and the School of Shammai," Harvard Theological Review 61:3, July 1968)

Not only does this shed light on 1 Cor. 15, but also on D&C 76. Just my two cents.

[WalkerW]

[Angel asks] tell me what thing thou seest more?

Seth. I see a goodly tree,

And its top very high aloft,

Even to the heaven growing.

And its roots to the lower earth

....

And in the top of that same tree

I do see a sweet Virgin

Sitting in great modesty,

And in her bosom a beautiful child,

As it seems to me so.

Angel. I will tell thee distinctly:

This truly as it is called,

Is the Tree of Life.

The Creation of the World, With Noah

[Mike Reed]

I admit that is a good one. I think that one is better than the others you mentioned.

Thanks, Walker. I have many many more I could quote. Unfortunately I have to sit on some of the information for now.

[WalkerW]

Thanks, Walker. I have many many more I could quote. Unfortunately I have to sit on some of the information for now.

Do you plan on compiling it in the future? I'm a devout Mormon, but I'd like to see a strong case for the 19th century explanation if it can be made.

[maklelan]

[Angel asks] tell me what thing thou seest more?

Seth. I see a goodly tree,

And its top very high aloft,

Even to the heaven growing.

And its roots to the lower earth

....

And in the top of that same tree

I do see a sweet Virgin

Sitting in great modesty,

And in her bosom a beautiful child,

As it seems to me so.

Angel. I will tell thee distinctly:

This truly as it is called,

Is the Tree of Life.

The Creation of the World, With Noah

[Mike Reed]

Do you plan on compiling it in the future? I'm a devout Mormon, but I'd like to see a strong case for the 19th century explanation if it can be made.

If someone doesn't beat me to the punch, I will. For now I have more important projects that I am involved in.

[Daniel Peterson]

William Jordan obviously didn

[Uncertain]

I don't agree with your analogy because you're trying to impose the scientific method and its accompanying epistemological standards onto literary criticism, which neither follows the scientific method, nor holds the same epistemological standards. Polysemy must be taken into account as well. Many authors draw inspiration for individual statements from multiple sources.

The logic holds regardless what it is being applied to. If two models explain the same data equally well there is no reason to choose one as superior to the other. Whether that data is textual data or it is data obtained from a chemistry experiment is immaterial.

Lastly, I don't agree that a suspension of conclusions is the best route. Gathering more data would be the best route.

Fair enough, frankly I view this a nitpicking. I agree gathering more data would be the best route.

At the same time, I disagree that these competing theories are equally as strong. As I've stated several times, you've simply asserted that. You haven't shown it. You certainly haven't shown that each theory is quantitatively identical to the other in evidentiary strength and explanatory power, so I don't see how the analogy applies there as well.

Well as you yourself pointed out there is considerable more ambiguity when dealing with textual data so I am not sure it is even possible to show quantitative equivalence. But luckily all that needs to be shown is alternative explanations are somewhere in the same ballpark.

Here is why I consider the Yhwh reading to be at least as powerful as the Asherah reading. Nephi desires to know the interpretation of the tree shown to his father and his shown this:

12 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look! And I looked as if to look upon him, and I saw him not; for he had gone from before my presence.

13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?

15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.

16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?

17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.

(bold added by me)

The angel does not emphasis Mary but the condescension of God i.e.(Christ).

19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

Again the angel does not emphasis Mary but Christ immediately after the angel placed an emphasis on Christ he asks Nephi if he knows what the tree means.

22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

23 And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul.

Nephi responds by describing the tree exactly how Christ is described in the New Testament i.e.(the love of God). Nephi is labeling the tree the same way Christ is labeled in the New Testament. To add to this is your observation that Yhwh in the Old testament is directly associated with a tree that gives good fruit. Also the symbolism later in this chapter fits much better with Christ as tree as compared to Asherah as tree. The "rod of iron" which is the word of God leads to the fountain of eternal life or the tree of life.

See:

25 And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

26 And the angel said unto me again: Look and behold the condescension of God!

(bold added by me)

The tree of life is directly linked to the fountain of living waters (ver 25) the fountain is also labeled the "love of God" the same description given to the tree of Life. "Fountain of living water" is an explicit symbol for Christ i.e(Yhwh) see(John 7:37-39, Revelation 7:17, Jeremiah 2:13, John 4:10-14). Again the angel emphasizes the condescension of God not the virgin Mary.

So do you argue the word of God leads to Asherah i.e(the tree) instead of Christ?

So to summarize Yhwh is at the center of this chapter not Mary the act of God sending his son Yhwh is explicitly linked elsewhere in the Bible with the "love of God" which is precisely how Nephi describes the tree and finally Yhwh as you helpfully pointed out is symbolized in the Old Testament by a tree with good fruit. Which is exactly the symbol Nephi is asked to interpret. The fountain of living waters is another explicit symbol for Yhwh and the tree of life in chapter 11 is directly linked to the fountain of living waters. Plus it makes little sense for the "word of God" to lead to Asherah and much better sense for the word of God to lead to Christ.

Now why in your opinion is the Asherah reading superior to the Yhwh reading what aspects of the text does the Asherah reading explain the Yhwh reading does not? Sure The virgin is describe as white as is the tree. Christ in many places is also described as white. You may argue the Asherah interpretation explains how Nephi jumps from the imagery of the tree to the interpretation i.e.("The love of God"). And yet if Nephi associated the tree with Yhwh it is not a great stretch for Nephi to describe God sending his son to earth as the "love of God" after all this is exactly as it is described elsewhere in the Bible. Also I think to much is made of Nephi's intuitive jump how did Nephi know Mary was a virgin based simply on visual imagery? How did Nephi know what the rod of iron meant and the great and spacious building based simply on imagery? There are a number of "leaps" made in this chapter not just the one concerning the tree. Given the well established teaching the spirit can impart knowledge directly to our minds. It is not a great mystery how Nephi knows the correct interpretation of all the symbols in his vision.

Really given the direct link between the tree of life and the fountain of living waters (which is clearly a reference to Christ) plus Yhwh being described in the old testament as a tree with good fruit. The Yhwh interpretation is not only comparable to the Asherah reading it is better. At least in my subjective opinion as I said I am not sure it is possible to quantitatively assign a number to such things. In any case I would be interested in your argument the tree is better represented as Asherah than as Christ. Especially since the "word of God" leads the faithful to the tree of life/fountain of living waters.

Best,

Uncertain

[Kevin Christensen]

Nephi and His Asherah remains one of my favorite essays, and I continue to be impressed by Maklelan's insights, and expect good things in the future.

For related further light and knowledge on Wisdom in the Book of Mormon and I think a stunning reading the Ta?anach stand against Ezekiel's vision, I'd recommend looking at Alyson Von Feldt's essays. There is more to Wisdom in the Ancient Near East and in the Book of Mormon that appears to those who do not take 2 Nephi 25:1-5 seriously enough to learn more after the manner of the things of the Jews. The print and pdf of her review of Dever includes some very good illustrations. The html versions are here.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/authors/?authorID=634

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[volgadon]

Why would folk religionists gratuitously cite Isaiah?

They had no problems citing Exodus.

[Nevo]

In the portion of my paper I quoted above I discuss Yhwh's assimilation of the aspects of motherhood and femininity in the late pre-exile. This would make it difficult for Asherah to be preserved as a separate being. Her symbol, however, remained.

But doesn't this argue against Nephi associating the tree with the goddess?

There seems to be some question about how well-known the goddess Asherah was during this period (ca. 600 BCE). Patrick Miller quotes Judith Hadley as saying that "by the time of the deuteronomistic compilers, the distinction between the Asherah the goddess and asherah the wooden cultic symbol had perhaps become totally obscured" (quoted in Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel, 37). John Day thinks the Deuteronomists still had the goddess herself in view but agrees with Hadley that by the time of the Chronicler "awareness of a goddess Asherah had simply faded away from the Jewish consciousness" (Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 46). Mark Smith, on the other hand, speculates that as early as the eighth century "the asherah ... may have been viewed as ... a symbol of fertility and perhaps even female sexuality associated with Yahweh without referring to a goddess as such" (Smith, "Like Deities, Like Temples," in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, 15).

If 2 Kings 23:6 is historically accurate, and if Nephi was aware of this event (and knew what the asherah looked like), would he have necessarily associated the cult object that was removed from the temple

[maklelan]

But doesn't this argue against Nephi associating the tree with the goddess?

There seems to be some question about how well-known the goddess Asherah was during this period (ca. 600 BCE). Patrick Miller quotes Judith Hadley as saying that "by the time of the deuteronomistic compilers, the distinction between the Asherah the goddess and asherah the wooden cultic symbol had perhaps become totally obscured" (quoted in Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel, 37). John Day thinks the Deuteronomists still had the goddess herself in view but agrees with Hadley that by the time of the Chronicler "awareness of a goddess Asherah had simply faded away from the Jewish consciousness" (Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 46). Mark Smith, on the other hand, speculates that as early as the eighth century "the asherah ... may have been viewed as ... a symbol of fertility and perhaps even female sexuality associated with Yahweh without referring to a goddess as such" (Smith, "Like Deities, Like Temples," in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, 15).

If 2 Kings 23:6 is historically accurate, and if Nephi was aware of this event (and knew what the asherah looked like), would he have necessarily associated the cult object that was removed from the temple

[SeattleGhostWriter]

In my opinion, this misses the point entirely. First, it would have been unusual for Nephi to not understand the complex of symbols surrounding a tree of life. In addition, the connection between Asherah and the tree/tree substitute should have been part of his cultural inheritance (I recently recognized what I believe to be evidence that Nephi was trained as a scribe, which would further underscore his cultural understanding of these symbols). Because of what he knew, and what he could see that was different in the vision, he needed an explanation--precisely because it was slightly different from his expectation.

When he comes to the meaning, without any other explanation, he comes to Mary as the Mother of God. Why was that the reason? He certainly would have understood the Asherah connection, and the information about the mortal birth of Yahweh was the shift in meaning that added to his expectations.

Therefore, there is no reason for Asherah to be a virgin, because the connection to Asherah was the springboard to more specific information, not the information itself.

You have to remember that in Hebrew, Virgin did not mean a woman who had not had sex with a man, but refers to a fair maiden, or a young woman of a marriageable age. The word is actually 'almah (pronounced almaw).

[Uncertain]

I would like to add some thoughts regarding the fountain of living waters. According to the Asherah reading Nephi makes a logical "jump" to obtain the correct interpretation of the tree of life based on equating the tree with Asherah. Well Nephi makes the very same "jump" with regards to the fountain of living waters. He views an image of the fountain and immediately "jumps" to the same interpretation he gave to the tree of life i.e.(the love of God). So how do we explain this logical "jump" which ancient Hebrew God/Goddess do we need to wedge into the text to explain how Nephi would immediately jump to the correct interpretation regarding the fountain of living water? (which happens to be the same interpretation he gives to the tree) Is there any evidence Asherah aka "the love of God" is also symbolized by a fountain of living water? In which case we have the faithful firmly grasping the iron rod fighting through mists of darkness and jeers from the great and spacious building to finally.....arrive at Asherah the fount of living waters and the tree of life .

Given that Christ is many places symbolized as providing living water and Yhwh is symbolized in the Old testament as a tree with good fruit isn't it a better reading to see Christ as the fountain/tree of life? I accept the mere fact Asherah can be read into the text is evidence for the BOM's antiquity. How much evidence is debatable. I think care should be taken when we start throwing around claims of strong evidence.

In any case I have very much enjoyed this discussion Makelan and company are clearly intelligent folks who know their stuff. I am going to be traveling this weekend to play in a sporting event so will have to bow out of this conversation.

Best,

Uncertain

[Deborah]

This reminds me of Valerie Hudson's presentation on the Two Trees and seems to fit with that idea.

[volgadon]

You have to remember that in Hebrew, Virgin did not mean a woman who had not had sex with a man, but refers to a fair maiden, or a young woman of a marriageable age. The word is actually 'almah (pronounced almaw).

You are confusing almah with betulah.