A Goddess in the Book of Mormon

[LifeOnaPlate]

Prof Peterson is an expert, but not in this field. Maklelan might be an expert someday but he is not currently.

Can someone make a valid argument if they don't count in your eyes as an "expert"? How would we know? I suggest by trying to understand the argument first rather than posting a link to a bad book review.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You're presupposing a normative brand of Judaism that was not in view until well into the post-exilic period.

Perhaps not even before the death of Christ would you say? It doesn't seem to me that Judaism made a clean trajectory at all anyway (and would you say "Judaism" is an anachronistic label for the discussion on Asherah?).

[maklelan]

Too late! It seems like a fine word but your use of it does not impress me and it does not make your point clear. I suspect you have in mind some outlandish "layered-translation" hypothesis but maybe you will surprise me with an even more contorted idea that is also orthogonal to the original claims of your religion.

My point is that there's more of Joseph Smith and his literary background in the Book of Mormon than most realize. We've gotten off course, however, and while that was your intention, I would rather return to the questions you've managed to avoid until this point. Shall I take your evasion of my discussion of Asherah and live trees as an indication you have no way to respond, or are you just busy crafting a lengthy response?

[maklelan]

Perhaps not even before the death of Christ would you say?

I would agree, but I'm trying to be a little more general. A "normative Judaism" was beginning to emerge in the post-exilic world, but it wouldn't become fully normative until the second and third century CE.

It doesn't seem to me that Judaism made a clean trajectory at all anyway (and would you say "Judaism" is an anachronistic label for the discussion on Asherah?).

Yes, "Judaism" is technically anachronistic to that time period.

[LifeOnaPlate]

No, there's not. The difficulty lie in the fact that appealing to Day's article as more authoritative than my presentation of the evidence (and the publications I've cited) is a rather blatant appeal to authority. You've also failed to pick up on the facts that (1) Day's article was published well before any of the publications I've cited, (2) Day's article does not address my specific conclusion, and (3) neither you nor Day have responded specifically to the evidence I've provided.

This reminds me of that old story where the guy lost his keys in the dark and he is crawling around under a street light looking for them. A passerby asks if this is where he dropped the keys and the man says "no, I dropped them over there but the light is better over here." IOW, our friend has read a few articles which are of peripheral relation, he has not taken into consideration the relevance of the few things he's read but intends to forge ahead anyway because the data is "better" simply because he's read it.

[volgadon]

I doubt it.

http://culturalmormoncafeteria.blogspot.com/2009/12/hieros-gamos.html

Feel free to doubt it, but he has already shown by his quoting Strong's that he confused almah with betulah. Almah is not used to indicate virginity, but age. Betulah, whilst not always strictly in the sense of virgin, is usually used for indicating that.

[LifeOnaPlate]

There are many things that rest on only one verse, a fine example of which is the doctrine of baptisms for the dead. (Which, incidentally, was practiced in the U.S. by the Ephrata Cloister before the LDS Church.)

Aw crud, and here I thought exclusivity was the true sign of religious legitimacy.

[Brennin]

My point is that there's more of Joseph Smith and his literary background in the Book of Mormon than most realize.

I am not interested in such a hypothesis because it has nothing to do with the history of your religion, the claims of Joseph Smith, or the Book of Mormon. It is yet another desperate attempt to rescue the Book of Mormon in the face of solid evidence to the contrary. (Although, I am not entirely sold on Deutero-Isaiah, the inclusion of the material attributed to him is hardly the only reason why Mormon apologists make recourse to outlandish "layered-translation" defenses.)

Shall I take your evasion of my discussion of Asherah and live trees as an indication you have no way to respond, or are you just busy crafting a lengthy response?

No. The only thing you offered is an ancient stand that I have not looked into yet.

[Daniel Peterson]

1.

"Desperate"?

Wishful thinking, pal.

2.

And to Volgadon: Your comments would be more credible if you knew some Hebrew. Sheesh.

[volgadon]

2.

And to Volgadon: Your comments would be more credible if you knew some Hebrew. Sheesh.

I guess they would be.

[maklelan]

I am not interested in such a hypothesis because it has nothing to do with the history of your religion, the claims of Joseph Smith, or the Book of Mormon.

You mean it has nothing to do with traditional understandings of that history. I think you need to pull it back a bit with these broad and overgeneralized attempts to preclude certain kinds of evidence. They simply don't work.

It is yet another desperate attempt to rescue the Book of Mormon in the face of solid evidence to the contrary. (Although, I am not entirely sold on Deutero-Isaiah, the inclusion of the material attributed to him is hardly the only reason why Mormon apologists make recourse to outlandish "layered-translation" defenses.)

Phenomenal, but it doesn't address anything.

No. The only thing you offered is an ancient stand that I have not looked into yet.

I also provided numerous biblical texts and several academic publications. Your only responses were (1) to say that you didn't read one of the texts because Pardee wrote a scathing review, and (2) to obliquely insist the argument is immaterial anyway because the whole discussion is rendered moot by the fact that the Book of Mormon is false anyway. Stop trying to to convince me you're in control of this argument. You're using transparently ad hoc argumentation and buttressing it with lengthy quotes from academic sources that have yet to actually directly address my claims. I don't know who you think you're fooling, but you're certainly not fooling me.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I also provided numerous biblical texts and several academic publications. Your only responses were (1) to say that you didn't read one of the texts because Pardee wrote a scathing review, and (2) to obliquely insist the argument is immaterial anyway because the whole discussion is rendered moot by the fact that the Book of Mormon is false anyway. Stop trying to to convince me you're in control of this argument. You're using transparently ad hoc argumentation and buttressing it with lengthy quotes from academic sources that have yet to actually directly address my claims. I don't know who you think you're fooling, but you're certainly not fooling me.

Just thought I would take a moment and drop back in this thread. I've essentially giving up arguing with Brennin. He/she is of the "nuh-uh" variety of disturbers. Those with vastly greater understanding and reading on the topic are treated like ignorant kindergarten children, as if somehow Brennin, with a myopic understanding, somehow has superior knowledge. I have no problem with Brennin (or Mike Reed) making arguments for Christ versus Asherah/Mary as the tree in the vision. That's fine. But to have Brennin make arguments based off of decades old research, citing articles that we have read and read counter-articles too, etc, and tell us we are way off base... well... it gets a little tiring for me. Hence my bowing out of this thread. If I wasn't taking precious amounts of time away from work, thus keeping me from my dear wife and son, I would marshal my considerable resources on this topic and post it here. But then again, probably not. It would be answered in an extremely short and ignorant laced reply that would largely ignore the work performed.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I am not interested in such a hypothesis because it has nothing to do with the history of your religion, the claims of Joseph Smith, or the Book of Mormon.

One final post: That is one of the most ridiculous assertions I have ever heard. You obviously have zero understanding of historiography. It has everything to do with not just "our" history, but history in general of the events, even for an unbeliever. The reliability of a particular view of translation when applied to various tests is critical to forming a better understanding on Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon as we have it now, and of the Church of Jesus Christ's beliefs and history.

[Brennin]

But to have Brennin make arguments based off of decades old research, citing articles that we have read and read counter-articles too, etc, and tell us we are way off base... well... it gets a little tiring for me.

Yes, the article I cited from Professor Day is from the time before time, 1986. Biblical scholarship is not like physics; an article from 24 years ago can be just as legitimate today as it was when it was first published. In fact, I have New Testament articles (my true interest within Biblical scholarship) that were written decades ago that are just as excellent and informative (and often more so) as articles that were just published.

Hence my bowing out of this thread.

Thank heaven for small favors. I get enough nonsense from maklelan. I don't need it x2.

[Brennin]

One final post: That is one of the most ridiculous assertions I have ever heard.

You did not hear it, you read it, and it is not ridiculous. By way of contrast, maklelan's attempts to salvage the Book of Mormon from the steel jaws of reality by appealing to Joseph Smith's "richly anaphoric" translation is entirely ridiculous.

You obviously have zero understanding of historiography.

To the contrary, I understand it quite well, which is why I am not a Mormon.

[Daniel Peterson]

Thank heaven for small favors. I get enough nonsense from maklelan. I don't need it x2.

If everybody bows out, you'll be serenely free from any challenges to your position.

I'm happy to make my contribution toward your attainment of that goal.

Goodbye!

[Brennin]

I also provided numerous biblical texts...

That do not counter Prof. Day's argument based on the OT that Asherim were not living trees. One does not make living trees and Jeremiah would not refer to Asherim beside every luxuriant tree if they were trees. Quod erat demonstrandum.

....and several academic publications.

I take Pardee's criticisms seriously; Tilde Binger is not worth reading. I suspect the other person (Judith something or other?) is similarly substandard.

[Brennin]

If everybody bows out, you'll be serenely free from any challenges to your position.

I'm happy to make my contribution toward your attainment of that goal.

Goodbye!

Before you go, here is a reference for the Ephrata Community practicing baptisms for the dead:

The first radical innovation was a proposition to have

one's self baptized for the dead. This scheme originated

in the fertile brain of Emanuel Eckerling, who managed

to convince Alexander Mack that his father, the patriarch,

had never been properly baptized. This effected, the two

men went to Beissel and requested him to baptize them for

their deceased relatives.

Beissel, after some hesitation, acquiesced, having been

won over by Elimelech's subtle arguments. This decision

of the superintendent quickly spread throughout the settle-

ment.

No efforts were spared by the Zionitic Brotherhood to

make the ceremony an impressive one. Upon the day set

a procession was formed of the Zionitic Brotherhood, the

Spiritual Virgins and the secular congregation. They

wended their way down the hill past the various buildings,

across the meadow, to a pool in the Cocalico, about oppo-

site to where the Brother House now stands. Special

hymns were sung and fervent invocations ascended when

the banks of the stream were reached.

Beissel was the administrator, and the first subject,

Emanuel Eckerling, who presented himself to be immersed

for his deceased mother. He was followed by Alexander

Mack, the younger, who was baptized for his deceased

father, the sainted patriarch of the Dunker Church. Both

of these parents had been baptized in Germany. An at-

tempt was made to justify this questionable proceeding by

the supposition, deduced from the words of Paul, that the

first Christians did the same.

The idea of thus securing immunity for deceased or

absent kinsfolk and friends struck the popular fancy, and

notwithstanding the contention of so clear headed a theo-

logian as Peter Miller, the custom obtained a firm foothold

and was practiced for many years. This movement was not

confined to the Ephrata Community, as there were many

cases "where even members of other faiths had themselves

baptised by proxy for relatives and friends. Indeed, this

peculiar custom actually outlived the Community, and

there are traditions of children having become substitutes

in baptism for parents, or vice versa as late as the fourth

decade of the present century.

Julius Friedrich Sachse, The German Sectarians of Pennsylvania: 1708-1742, Chapter 24 (Published in 1899)

[maklelan]

That do not counter Prof. Day's argument based on the OT that Asherim were not living trees.

I already explained how you were conflating his discussion with mine. The fact that the Hebrew word asherim does not seem to be used in the Hebrew Bible in reference to living trees in no way undermines my discussion of the fact that Asherah was worshipped in connection with living trees. The fact that the Hebrew texts mentions asherim in connection with worship involving living trees confirms my point. Day is discussing the way a single word is used. I am discussing the way a goddess was worshipped.

One does not make living trees and Jeremiah would not refer to Asherim beside every luxuriant tree if they were trees. Quod erat demonstrandum.

I didn't say the asherim were trees, I said Israelites incorporated living trees in their worship when they could. Unless you can provide some other reason why living trees were incorporated into the cultic use of the asherim, you need to concede the point.

I take Pardee's criticisms seriously; Tilde Binger is not worth reading.

Pardee wrote that the book was not worth reading? Where?

I suspect the other person (Judith something or other?) is similarly substandard.

You suspect Judith Hadley is substandard? That book is a revision of Hadley's Cambridge dissertation, and is required reading for any decent research on Asherah. You've further revealed your ignorance of this scholarship and that your entire argument is exclusively ad hoc.

[maklelan]

You did not hear it, you read it, and it is not ridiculous. By way of contrast, maklelan's attempts to salvage the Book of Mormon from the steel jaws of reality by appealing to Joseph Smith's "richly anaphoric" translation is entirely ridiculous.

Fortunately for scholarship everywhere, "That's entirely ridiculous" isn't a legitimate rebuttal. If you wish to challenge my comments then do so legitimately.

[Daniel Peterson]

Before you go, here is a reference for the Ephrata Community practicing baptisms for the dead:

Thank you.

It doesn't strike me as terribly important, with regard to the truth claims of Mormonism, but it's good to know. As I say, the people who run the site at Ephrata don't appear to be aware of this practice; plainly, they, or those who briefed them, haven't seen it as a central feature of the old life there.

One of the many things that I found laughable about John Brooke's The Refiner's Fire was its propensity for seeking the sources of Mormonism in obscure hermetic lore or schismatic groups when, even if one were inclined to a naturalistic explanation, the Bible itself was the more obvious and easy place to go. When 1 Corinthians 15:29 was right there in Joseph Smith's Bible, it seems frivolous to invoke the Ephrata Cloister as the proximate source.

[maklelan]

Yes, the article I cited from Professor Day is from the time before time, 1986. Biblical scholarship is not like physics; an article from 24 years ago can be just as legitimate today as it was when it was first published. In fact, I have New Testament articles (my true interest within Biblical scholarship) that were written decades ago that are just as excellent and informative (and often more so) as articles that were just published.

True enough, but this isn't the concern. The concern is the fact that the research I've cited all occurs after Day's article, meaning his assertions must be reevaluated in light of the subsequent research. Make all the assertions you want, but no one with any formal education is fooled when your argument consists of appeals to an article that pre-dates the scholarship we're citing, accompanied by ridiculous claims that Pardee told you not to read one book, and, since Pardee said that, you don't have to read the other book either.

Thank heaven for small favors. I get enough nonsense from maklelan. I don't need it x2.

And yet you can't point to any nonsense on my part. You can only bark that my appeal to the anaphoric nature of the Book of Mormon translation is ridiculous. On scholarship related to Asherah worship you and everyone else here knows you are light years out of your league, and you can't even begin to challenge that. The only one slinging nonsense here is you.

[Hick Preacher]

I dare say that I took a look.

I think this is an interesting find and provides some sort of correlation between either ancient beliefs, some kind of Jungian symbol or perhaps and ancient connection between the BoM text and the ancient world.

Asherah and Baal

Isis and Horus

Mary and Jesus

Nephi and the Tree symbol (associated with Asherah)

The Tree of Eden

No doubt about it-- and it is not rocket science---these are all connected with ancient religious and mythological motifs.

The thing is that the guy that points this out has a wiz Avatar on this MABD board.

[ELF1024]

The thing is that the guy that points this out has a wiz Avatar on this MABD board.

I thought it was Ming the Merciless from Flash Gordon (1980). Max Von Sydow

[Hick Preacher]

I thought it was Ming the Merciless from Flash Gordon (1980). Max Von Sydow

Hey-- Must be-- just look at this online pic

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSyBWMdvHYgA-Cp9bn81tp7URoefsm_jjJc2UkFjm8I6jxk2Eg&t=1&usg=__S7m2ZqKy01xTbFM-qPrQlErOaJ4=

Thing is Max Von Sydow also played Christ is another production.

How confusing!