The Council Of The Gods

[Ron Beron]

The Gnostic conflation of Sophia (Wisdom) with the Holy Ghost doesn't mean Joseph missed the mark, especially since Wisdom terminology was often connected with Christ Himself in the New Testament. The work of Margaret Barker indicates to me that the feminine aspects of Sophia are left over from early Israelite belief in a goddess.

When we look at other early Christian writings like The Ascension of Isaiah, we find find Isaiah ascending through the various heavens until he sees Christ and a "glorious one who was like Him." When Isaiah asks his angelic guide who this figure is, the angel answers, "Worship him, for he is the angel of the Holy Spirit..." Not only is this figure anthropomorphic, but male.

Thanks for this, Walker. It is certainly accurate and something I have believed for awhile and have commented on. Let's go a little further and say Jesus fulfilled this role as a NT Sophia or Logos.

[Ron Beron]

And while not explicitly depicted as anthromporphic, the Holy Ghost is a male figure in Sefer Yetzirah, fulfilling a similar function to the Logos.

Geesh...I really should read ahead. I haven't read that...interesting.

[volgadon]

Thanks for this, Walker. It is certainly accurate and something I have believed for awhile and have commented on. Let's go a little further and say Jesus fulfilled this role as a NT Sophia or Logos.

You should read Daniel Boyarin's "Border Lines." I can gaurantee you'll enjoy it.

[Ron Beron]

You should read Daniel Boyarin's "Border Lines." I can gaurantee you'll enjoy it.

On the list....looks interesting...thanks.

[WalkerW]

On the list....looks interesting...thanks.

I second the endorsement. It was quite eye-opening for me. One of the most important elements for me was that Christianity's conflict with the emerging Rabbinic Judaism was over the Logos theology, which was an already existing Second Temple Jewish concept. It wasn't the worship of the Logos or its divinity that was the problem, but that the Logos had been made flesh in the Christian sect. This is when you begin to see objections to other divine figures being included in one's worship. It was a way by which to brand Christians as heretics. Boyarin points out that the Trinity actually rejects the very Logos theology that was central to Christianity's parting with Rabbinic Judaism. By becoming the same metaphysical substance as the Father, the Logos theology as was understood in 1st century Jewish Palestine was lost.

[WalkerW]

Thanks for this, Walker. It is certainly accurate and something I have believed for awhile and have commented on. Let's go a little further and say Jesus fulfilled this role as a NT Sophia or Logos.

Absolutely. This is in my view critical to understanding Paul's distinction between the "works of the law" and "faith in Christ." The Torah had taken on a life of its own and often had the Wisdom terminology associated with it during Christ's period. The Torah was the divine mediator between Israel and God. The NT authors recognize Christ to actually fulfill this role. It isn't a dichotomy between works and faith that is the issue (especially since pistis actually means 'loyalty' or 'commitment'), but the Torah and Jesus. Is the Torah God's divine mediator in which salvation is found or is Christ?

[Xander]

This is a response to Ron. My time is limited but I do try to get back to previous discussions when I can.

Elohim is not only the plural, but in many cases it means God Almighty or "God of Gods". When used with singular verbs it is used singularly and in plurality with plural verbs. It depends on the context.

I didn't say it is only the plural, I said the plural nature of the word could easily lead a first year Hebrew student to believe it referred to "gods," in Genesis. Hence, Joseph Smith's theological shift after learning some Hebrew.

All religious beliefs go through an evolutionary change.

Not all, and certainly not to the degree and frequency as Mormonism exhibited in the first decade.

In regards to the books you presented. Ownership of a book does not necessarily mean he read them let alone assume that these books contained evidences for his thoughts and theology.

So your position is that Joseph Smith owned all of these books, but that this doesn't constitute evidence that he read them? Are you kidding me? People generally buy books for the purpose of reading them.

I will retract this statement, of course, if you can show me where his theology was "borrowed" from his donated library.

Not his theology per se, but the elements from which he used to shape his theology. The Philosophy of a Future State contains uncanny resemblances to some of the elements found within the Book of Abraham, for example. in December 1835 Josephus was cited in the Messenger and Advocate by Oliver Cowdrey several times because it was believed that Joseph Smith was restoring lost truths.

I think the evidence that is in shows the ancient Jews reflected God's creative abilities in a feminine manner, hence the inclusion of Asherah. With all human things Asherah slowly evolved from pseudo-deity to mental construct in much the same was as Philo of Alexandria developed the concept of Neoplationism into a rationale for trinitarianism.

True. But I don't see how Israel moving towards a more abstract notion of a feminine reative power, helps your case.

You state that you don't believe that the Jewish theology didn't " derive from divine revelation nor did the Israelites ever claim that they did".

No, I said nothing about Jewish theology. You're assuming a Heavenly Mother was Jewish theology, when all we know really is that Jewish religious practices in the rural areas had a tendency to hold onto the older, Canaanite traditions of image sculpting specific deities. Again, you haven't overcome the hurdle of epistemology. We know where this notion came from. Divine revelation is completely out of the picture. What you and the apologists need to demonstrate is that this was a belief based on divine revelation. But no Bible scholar I am aware of has said this was based on divine revelation. The consensus is that it is based on myth that goes back many centuries before the Exile.

Obviously you have never read Amos 3:7

Obviously you've never understood Amos 3:7. As a former missionary I know that is one of the most frequently cited scriptures during the discussions, so of course I'm aware of what it says. But it doesn't help you for the simple reason that this says nothing about Asherah, and the rural religion of Israel was worshipping Asherah before Amos was born or his book written.

(3:7 Certainly the sovereign Lord does nothing without first revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.) which shows the methodology the Jews believed in

But says nothing about Asherah. Ancient Jews did all sorts of stupid things that required the occasional divine slap-down. To say they'd never believe or practice anything unless a prophet revealed it, is demonstrably false.

Again, you are negating the prophetic nature of Jacob, Abraham, Joseph, and Moses, etc. They never received revelation from God??

They never received revelation concering Asherah, period.

If at the heart of this you are denying that the belief in a feminine aspect of God's character and attributes is not present as part of revelation then how would you explain the constant references to the creative power of Hokhma or Wisdom? Reference to "Her" is replete throughout the OT.

If you understood Biblical Wisdom, you'd know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with a Mother in Heaven. This notion that Wisdom derived from Asherah is quite a stretch and just a theory. There is nothing solid backing it up, but even if there were, you're still left with an abstract concept explaining God's creative power, and not a separate deity that could in any way be understood as God's wife. And following your own logic, why would the Jews accept Wisdom over Asherah unless it was revealed by divine revelation?

[Ron Beron]

'Xander writes,

My Quote

All religious beliefs go through an evolutionary change.

Not all, and certainly not to the degree and frequency as Mormonism exhibited in the first decade.

Can you name one that isn’t in a state of evolution? In a book, “Cycles of Faith”, written by Robert Ellwood of USC, it finds

"that they [world religions] have gone through comparable stages, here named Apostolic, Wisdom/Imperial, Devotional, Reformation, and Folk Religion. Each has had a primal period of consolidation as a new world religion, a time of alignment with a major empire giving it a political base, the exfoliation of medieval-type devotion, a Reformation involving putative simplification and return to the sources, and a final stage when it survives more or less as folk religion in a changed world. Though there are great variations, each stage may very roughly last five centuries or so. Thus Christianity would be now entering its Folk Religion stage, while Islam, five hundred years younger, is amidst the turmoil of an era like that of the Protestant Reformation in Europe. Some commentators have felt this analogy helps one to understand what has happened with the two faiths in the twentieth century and after."

So your position is that Joseph Smith owned all of these books, but that this doesn't constitute evidence that he read them? Are you kidding me? People generally buy books for the purpose of reading them.

I have thousands of books not all of which I have read yet. Generally, the ones that get sold are those that I haven’t read. Secondly, having read my books does not guarantee they will find reflection in my words. Exposure doesn’t ensure belief or action.

You're assuming a Heavenly Mother was Jewish theology, when all we know really is that Jewish religious practices in the rural areas had a tendency to hold onto the older, Canaanite traditions of image sculpting specific deities.

Hopefully, I never suggested that Judaism ever suggested a belief in a Heavenly Mother ala Mormon theology because that would be overly simplistic. I will argue that they worshiped a feminine fertile or creative aspect to God. It is readily evident that the Jews, ostensibly a Canaanite tribal group, did indeed worship a feminine deity via revelation as both the consort, his wife, counselor, co-creator. and yes, mother to his children. In the words of Silvia Schroer who wrote, “Wisdom Has Built Her House”, “She is God’s lover, seated beside him on his throne, and she is the beloved, the wife, and the sister of the student of Wisdom. She is a protecting and nourishing tree goddess who gladdens the student of Wisdom with her fruits. She is a wrathful teacher and preacher who raises her voice in the streets, and she is the counselor of kings and sages.”

In regards to revelation the scriptures record this...

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

“O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.” Ps. 104:24

“The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.” Prov. 3:19

Who do you consider Wisdom in these passages? And, are they revelations?

In Proverbs Wisdom speaks out:

8:12 “I, wisdom, live with prudence, 23

and I find 24 knowledge and discretion.

8:14 Counsel and sound wisdom belong to me; 28

I possess understanding and might.”

Wisdom or Hokhma was also counselor to God as well as to kings in the manner of ancient Israel where wives and mothers were counselors to kings. Since the king represented an actual model of a heavenly figure it is worth noting that our Heavenly King also had a wife/mother.

In Proverbs we read

5:1 My child, 2 be attentive to my wisdom,

pay close attention 3 to my understanding,

5:2 in order to safeguard 4 discretion, 5

and that your lips may guard knowledge.

So while the ancient Israeli model is not exactly like that of the LDS it is certainly suggestive of an earlier understanding of the role of God’s consort.

Again, you haven't overcome the hurdle of epistemology. We know where this notion came from. Divine revelation is completely out of the picture. What you and the apologists need to demonstrate is that this was a belief based on divine revelation. But no Bible scholar I am aware of has said this was based on divine revelation. The consensus is that it is based on myth that goes back many centuries before the Exile

.

Again, you are ignoring the Biblical material. And, as a matter of course many biblical scholars do not except the concept of revelation at all. Forgetting Asherah the concept of feminine aspect of God was distinctly revelatory while Asherah was the profound made profane.

Obviously you've never understood Amos 3:7. As a former missionary I know that is one of the most frequently cited scriptures during the discussions, so of course I'm aware of what it says. But it doesn't help you for the simple reason that this says nothing about Asherah, and the rural religion of Israel was worshipping Asherah before Amos was born or his book written.

It doesn’t have to. It addresses how God communicates with his prophets. Read further in Amos...

3:8 A lion has roared! 10 Who is not afraid?

The sovereign Lord has spoken! Who can refuse to prophesy? 11

The implication is clear, expect prophecy before divine action!

I never said it pointed directly to a worship of Asherah, but to a shadow of the creative process behind Asherah. Your previous comment directly stated that revelation wasn’t part of the canon process in the OT. >>. If you go back far enough, you'll see that they do not derive from divine revelation nor did the Israelites ever claim that they did. Rather they derive from the myths of Israel's prehistory. << There wasn’t a specific reference to a mother in heaven nor did you specifically point out the difference.

They never received revelation concering Asherah, period.

I disagree. Asherah is a false idol that was worshiped in a tangible and physical way by the Jews. The power behind it was legitimate and not unrevelatory. The scriptures particularly Genesis, Proverbs etc. are replete with revelatory information on the Lady Wisdom in the creative processes of God:

This notion that Wisdom derived from Asherah is quite a stretch and just a theory. There is nothing solid backing it up, but even if there were, you're still left with an abstract concept explaining God's creative power, and not a separate deity that could in any way be understood as God's wife. And following your own logic, why would the Jews accept Wisdom over Asherah unless it was revealed by divine revelation?

Then you arguing against many who would disagree with you, e.g., Wm Dever, J. Day, M.S. Smith, R. Patai, etc., etc., etc.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Ron Beron

[volgadon]

The Philosophy of a Future State contains uncanny resemblances to some of the elements found within the Book of Abraham, for example.

Like this from p. 135?

In reference to the stability and perpetuity of the celestial luminaries, it is declared, that "Jehovah hath prepared his THRONE in the heavens." And when the Psalmist calls upon all the beings in the universe to celebrate the praises of the Creator, he says, in reference to the orbs of heaven, "Praise ye him, sun and moon, praise him all ye stars of light: let them praise the name of the Lord; for he commanded, and they were created. He hath also stablished them for ever and ever; he hath made a decree which shall not pass; which expressions evidently imply, that, whatever changes may happen in particular systems, the great body of the celestial orbs, which constitute some of the grandest scenes of the universe, will remain stable and permanent as the throne of the Eternal.

Not particularly striking or uncanny. Granted, you probably means things like the bits on intellect, which are closer, but I would love to see an exploration from you of the differences and probable common sources of both, mor does that demand only extend to LDS apologists using biblical material?

Edited July 23, 2011 by volgadon

[Xander]

Can you name one that isn’t in a state of evolution? In a book, “Cycles of Faith”, written by Robert Ellwood of USC, it finds..

As I said, not to the degree and frequency as Mormonism exhibited in its first decade of existence. But what are you saying here, that Mormonism is just like all other religions in that it changes with the wind, and isn't based on the God that is the "same today, yesterday and forever"? Why would you appeal to the evolution of the many faces of the "Church of the Devil" as validation for Mormonism's constant state of flux? Mormonism proposed to be something very different. It was headed by a Prophet who would just flat out tell us what God was saying, without all the ambiguity that come from interpreting corrupted scriptures. But what modern LDS apologists are doing is essentially making the whole point of having a Prophet, superfluous. I mean what's the point of it if his revelations are muddled and subject to error and interpretation, because it is expressed in corruptible language, etc? In any event, it should be obvious that a religion that changes so frequently is one that worships a God that can't seem to make up his mind what he wants to say.

I have thousands of books not all of which I have read yet. Generally, the ones that get sold are those that I haven’t read. Secondly, having read my books does not guarantee they will find reflection in my words. Exposure doesn’t ensure belief or action.

The comparison is absurd for the simple reason that Joseph Smith didn't have the luxury of sifting through "thousands of books" at his disposal. He treasured each one as any 19th century student would. The apologetic is becoming increasingly desperate and incoherent. First we're told Joseph Smith was an ignorant farm boy. Then we're told he had no access to scholarly works that would have influenced his theology. Now that it has been shown that he was very interested in such works, and in fact owned them, the goal posts have been moved back another 50 yds as we're now required to present, what, "absolute proof" that Joseph Smith read them? Unbelievable.

Hopefully, I never suggested that Judaism ever suggested a belief in a Heavenly Mother ala Mormon theology because that would be overly simplistic.

I'm not sure that you have either, but it is becoming increasingly popular among some apologists to argue along those lines. Otherwise, why the focused interest in Asherah literature among LDS apologists?

I will argue that they worshiped a feminine fertile or creative aspect to God.

They probably worshipped Asherah as a deity in her own right, at least before the Josiahan purge. But this doesn't really mean anything since the Israelites were accused of idolatry.

It is readily evident that the Jews, ostensibly a Canaanite tribal group, did indeed worship a feminine deity via revelation as both the consort, his wife, counselor, co-creator

Based on what evidence? Dever, Smith, Cross, et al have never suggested this came to them from divine revelation. What they will say is that these were traditions deriving from Israel's prehistory. The common folk had a hard time letting go of such traditions.

In the words of Silvia Schroer who wrote...So while the ancient Israeli model is not exactly like that of the LDS it is certainly suggestive of an earlier understanding of the role of God’s consort.

This is terribly wrong. You quote mined a feminist scholar so far as you thought it helped your case, but you don't seem to understand the context of what she was saying. The preceding sentence which you avoided says, "In the books of Proverbs, Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon personified Widsom appears in a variety of roles, images and symbols." By dodging that important qualifier, you cite the rest of the statement to make it sound like she was referring strictly to a biblical text and that it was literal. Schroer previously explains that:

"Behind the text of Proverbs 1-9 is an implicit metaphor: 'Wisdom is (like) a woman who...' This metaphor attempts to make something that is incomprehensible and abstract into something more comprehensible, more concrete, and more familiar. The less-known entity, the thing to be signified, is 'wisdom,' which is related analogously to the signifier 'woman.' Thus 'woman' is an image of 'wisdom.' Personification, as a sub category of metaphor, is a style or a mode of expression that gives life to a thing, that treats something not a person as if it were a person and so lings the abstract to the concrete; it personalized the impersonal."

You cite scriptures but fail to understand the whole point behind the personifcation of Wisdom, which according to Schroer, "was an attempt to set a feminine image of the God in place of and alongside a masculine image, linking the God of Israel to the experience and the lives especially of the women in Israel, the Most High God to the realm of household religion, and beyond that to the images and roled of the ancient Near Eastern goddesses."

So Wisdom was understood in numerous metaphors, symbols and abstract concepts that needed to be personified. She was never understood as a literal being, let alone a literal sister, counselor, maid or wife.

[Xander]

Again, you are ignoring the Biblical material.

No, I simply know how to understand it within its proper cultural context. If you properly read and comprehended Schroer, then you would as well.

And, as a matter of course many biblical scholars do not except the concept of revelation at all.

Naturally, so you at least admit you have no scholarship to fall back on. It is merely an assertion based on an assumption. A hunch that is shaped by an apologetic agenda.

Forgetting Asherah the concept of feminine aspect of God was distinctly revelatory while Asherah was the profound made profane.

And yet you still insist on reasserting this claim without backing it up with evidence. Your problem, as I have illustrated, is that there is little mystery left surrounding Asherah. We know where she came from. There is no room for divine revelation whatsoever, at least not unless you want to attribute that revelation to the Akkadian, Egyptian and Canaanite priests.

It doesn’t have to. It addresses how God communicates with his prophets. Read further in Amos

Again, Asherah worship predates Amos. Amos says nothing about Asherah. You're trying to connect dots while jumping over impossible hurdles. And you still haven't dealt with the fact that the Ancient Israelites frequently engaged in religious practices/ beliefs that ran contrary to what the Prophets revealed. So to say their worship of Asherah is divine simply because Amos says the lord reveals secrets to prophets, is pure nonsense. And no, Amos 3:7 doesn't "address how God communicates with his prophets." All it says is that he will reveal secrets to them. So what? You have yet to establish that Asherah was a secret at all. Asherah was a product of mutating tradition, plain and simple. We know why they believed she existed. For the same reasons so much of the Bible resembles the seventeenth century B.C Epic of Gilgamesh (i.e. "Bull of Heaven").

The implication is clear, expect prophecy before divine action!

That is a very Mormon interpretation of that scripture, so no, the implication isn't really clear to anyone outside LDS circles. Jews never understood that scripture accordingly. Taking your interpretation to its logical extent means that for nearly two thousand years God essentially "did nothing," since that's what Amos said. So he never mourned, he never blessed anyone, he never cured the faithful, he never punished the guilty, etc. He did nothing. Right?

But this is beside the point since the worship of Asherah has nothing to do with divine action on the part of Yahweh. You're making huge illicipt leaps in logic here, but still refuse to address teh problem I already presented you. The fact that the Israelites were constantly doing and believing things that ran contrary to what the Lord wanted. How do you reconcile this with your theory?

I never said it pointed directly to a worship of Asherah, but to a shadow of the creative process behind Asherah. Your previous comment directly stated that revelation wasn’t part of the canon process in the OT.

I said nothing about the "canon process" of the OT. But now that you mention it, the OT overwhelmingly condemns Asherah worship. So which is it? Oh that's right, the Bible was corrupted by subsequent scribes and redactors. So suddenly the "canon process" isn't based on revelation at all, is it? It is revelation when you need it to be, and it is corrupted when you need it to be. You're essentially picking and choosing the scriptures you think you can use to mold a Heavenly Mother doctrine while ignoring the interpretative template provided by scholars. You're doing the same thing by providing carefully selected sound bites from scholars who say things that, without their context, make it sound like they're lending support to the Mormon apologetic.

I disagree.

Obviously. But without evidence, your disagreement is based in apologetic necessity.

Asherah is a false idol that was worshiped in a tangible and physical way by the Jews. The power behind it was legitimate and not unrevelatory.

Then please support it with something aside from your say so.

The scriptures particularly Genesis, Proverbs etc. are replete with revelatory information on the Lady Wisdom in the creative processes of God:

Wisdom is an abstract concept that became personified in different ways. She is clearly understood as a"metaphor, symbol, analogy, personified, abstract," etc. You need to read what scholars have written on the Wisdom literature to better understand this.

Then you arguing against many who would disagree with you, e.g., Wm Dever, J. Day, M.S. Smith, R. Patai, etc., etc., etc.

Another bald assertion. I'm guessing these books fall into the category of books you say you own but never read?

[Ron Beron]

Xander writes,

As I said, not to the degree and frequency as Mormonism exhibited in its first decade of existence. But what are you saying here, that Mormonism is just like all other religions in that it changes with the wind, and isn't based on the God that is the "same today, yesterday and forever"?

Yes, I am. To deny that Mormonism has evolved since 1830 is foolish.

Why would you appeal to the evolution of the many faces of the "Church of the Devil" as validation for Mormonism's constant state of flux?

I am unclear as to what you mean here.

I'm not sure that you have either, but it is becoming increasingly popular among some apologists to argue along those lines. Otherwise, why the focused interest in Asherah literature among LDS apologists?

The simplest solution is the easiest to understand. I feel that the concept is much more complex than either an appeal to a "Mother in Heaven" or to a Asherah. I simply think that people find it easier to find the least complex way to understand preternatural forces.

Based on what evidence? Dever, Smith, Cross, et al have never suggested this came to them from divine revelation. What they will say is that these were traditions deriving from Israel's prehistory. The common folk had a hard time letting go of such traditions.

I have never said that the concept of Asherah did only her more legitimate and profound manifestation as hokhma or Wisdom.

This is terribly wrong. You quote mined a feminist scholar so far as you thought it helped your case, but you don't seem to understand the context of what she was saying.

You state this like feminist studies of the OT is a evil thing. Frankly, its nice to have a different approach.

The preceding sentence which you avoided says, "In the books of Proverbs, Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon personified Widsom appears in a variety of roles, images and symbols." By dodging that important qualifier, you cite the rest of the statement to make it sound like she was referring strictly to a biblical text and that it was literal. Schroer previously explains that:

"Behind the text of Proverbs 1-9 is an implicit metaphor: 'Wisdom is (like) a woman who...' This metaphor attempts to make something that is incomprehensible and abstract into something more comprehensible, more concrete, and more familiar. The less-known entity, the thing to be signified, is 'wisdom,' which is related analogously to the signifier 'woman.' Thus 'woman' is an image of 'wisdom.' Personification, as a sub category of metaphor, is a style or a mode of expression that gives life to a thing, that treats something not a person as if it were a person and so lings the abstract to the concrete; it personalized the impersonal."

You cite scriptures but fail to understand the whole point behind the personifcation of Wisdom, which according to Schroer, "was an attempt to set a feminine image of the God in place of and alongside a masculine image, linking the God of Israel to the experience and the lives especially of the women in Israel, the Most High God to the realm of household religion, and beyond that to the images and roled of the ancient Near Eastern goddesses."

So Wisdom was understood in numerous metaphors, symbols and abstract concepts that needed to be personified. She was never understood as a literal being, let alone a literal sister, counselor, maid or wife.

Yes, roles, images, and symbols. I never stated that Asherah was anything but a symbol. Her statement that it is a "implicit metaphor" is correct to the modern way of thinking, but what the ancient thought when writing in Proverbs is anyone's guess. I will agree with her continued statement that "This metaphor attempts to make something that is incomprehensible and abstract into something more comprehensible, more concrete, and more familiar." I believe Asherah was the symbol and the image of a feminine aspect to God's creative powers. It is equally true that Wisdom or hokhma was seen in a very specific role as the creative manifestation of God's powers. I do not believe that Asherah was a ancient "Mother in Heaven" any more than I believe Mary was. Metaphor, symbol, role or image or what Wisdom was accepted as Jewish canon, but not as an actual deity, but as the NET Bible states,

In this chapter wisdom is personified. In

1:20-33

wisdom proclaims her value, and in

3:19-26

wisdom is the agent of creation. Such a personification has affinities with the wisdom literature of the ancient Near East, and may have drawn on some of that literature, albeit with appropriate safeguards (Claudia V. Camp,

Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs

, 23-70). Wisdom in , however, is not a deity like Egypt’s

Ma`at

or the Assyrian-Babylonian

Ishtar.

It is simply presented as if it were a self-conscious divine being distinct but subordinate to God; but in reality

it is the personification of the attribute of wisdom displayed by God

(R. B. Y. Scott,

Proverbs, Ecclesiastes

[AB], 69-72; and R. Marcus, “On Biblical Hypostases of Wisdom,”

HUCA

23 [1950-1951]: 157-71).

Mormon apologists may indeed try to equate the Asherah of the OT with that of the Mormon, "Mother in Heaven", but there isn't an agreement. Yet, the concept of personification of God's creative powers in a feminine motif or "symbol" speaks to an understanding that JS had of ancient sensibilities and thought that escaped his contemporaries.

[Ron Beron]

Xander writes,

No, I simply know how to understand it within its proper cultural context. If you properly read and comprehended Schroer, then you would as well.

No, I have read her as well as you have with different conclusions.

Naturally, so you at least admit you have no scholarship to fall back on. It is merely an assertion based on an assumption. A hunch that is shaped by an apologetic agenda.

I am hardly an apologist. I am simply a member of the loyal opposition.

And yet you still insist on reasserting this claim without backing it up with evidence. Your problem, as I have illustrated, is that there is little mystery left surrounding Asherah. We know where she came from. There is no room for divine revelation whatsoever, at least not unless you want to attribute that revelation to the Akkadian, Egyptian and Canaanite priests.

At this point we are simply talking past each other. I have agreed that Asherah is NOT a product of revelation but the concept behind her, i.e., hokhma was.

That is a very Mormon interpretation of that scripture, so no, the implication isn't really clear to anyone outside LDS circles. Jews never understood that scripture accordingly. Taking your interpretation to its logical extent means that for nearly two thousand years God essentially "did nothing," since that's what Amos said. So he never mourned, he never blessed anyone, he never cured the faithful, he never punished the guilty, etc. He did nothing. Right?

Actually it is a very Protestant interpretation.

>>Jews never understood that scripture accordingly.<< What do you mean here. Jews cannot define how they interpret their scriptures? I define prophet differently than you would. I think Luther was a prophet of sorts, but most individuals follow the status quo without argument.

I said nothing about the "canon process" of the OT. But now that you mention it, the OT overwhelmingly condemns Asherah worship. So which is it? Oh that's right, the Bible was corrupted by subsequent scribes and redactors. So suddenly the "canon process" isn't based on revelation at all, is it? It is revelation when you need it to be, and it is corrupted when you need it to be. You're essentially picking and choosing the scriptures you think you can use to mold a Heavenly Mother doctrine while ignoring the interpretative template provided by scholars. You're doing the same thing by providing carefully selected sound bites from scholars who say things that, without their context, make it sound like they're lending support to the Mormon apologetic.

Take a chill pill or I'll have to call your mother. There was corruption and redactions. That's a fact. They weren't major, but they existed. It is the exegete in the last 2000 years who have been the most corrupt. Again, I am not a Mormon apologist, but a person who is trying to understand, if not the theology then the mind of the ancients.

Then please support it with something aside from your say so.

See below, "Miller".

Wisdom is an abstract concept that became personified in different ways. She is clearly understood as a"metaphor, symbol, analogy, personified, abstract," etc. You need to read what scholars have written on the Wisdom literature to better understand this.

Abstract or not it is simply the writers attempt to give understanding to a subject that was difficult to convey. Again, Dever expounds on this in his discussion of Patrick Miller's book, Ancient Israelite Religion; "Miller concludes that if the goddess Asherah had been venerated in ancient Israel, it would only have been as a 'hypostatization' of the supposed feminine dimensions of Yahweh. In this process , one aspect of the divine powers if personalized and elevated to the status of a quasi-independent deity. Thus in Proverbs 8 and elsewhere, Hebrew hokma, the 'wisdom' of Yahweh, appears as 'Lady Wisdom' and a participant with Yahweh in creation." (Did God have a Wife p. 199).

Another bald assertion. I'm guessing these books fall into the category of books you say you own but never read?

Good retort, nasty but good. Also, inaccurate and incorrect. Historians seldom deal with theological issues such as faith or revelation since it involves an understanding of processes that cannot be empirically proven. Dever writes, "...theology may be a legitimate task of the modern exegete, but it must be kept strictly separate from the task of the historian. It is not the historian's job to produce data to justify any particular theological system." (Did God have a Wife?)

Edited July 23, 2011 by Ron Beron

[Xander]

Yes, I am. To deny that Mormonism has evolved since 1830 is foolish.

Unfortunately, that isn't what we told prospective investigators on our mission.

I am unclear as to what you mean here.

Mormonism is nothing special or unique really since it retains all the same attributes of a man made religion. There is no reason why God's "One True Church" should evolve at all. Saying this is what other religions have done isn't a good justification for it.

The simplest solution is the easiest to understand

But what apologists are saying isn't really a solution to anything.

I feel that the concept is much more complex than either an appeal to a "Mother in Heaven" or to a Asherah.

Absolutely.

I simply think that people find it easier to find the least complex way to understand preternatural forces.

This explains why they leap to the conclusion of Asherah = Heavenly Mother?

I have never said that the concept of Asherah did only her more legitimate and profound manifestation as hokhma or Wisdom.

But according to your own source, Wisdom has nothing to do with Asherah and virtually everything to do with Egyptian goddesses Maat, Isis and Hathor. The concept of Wisdom derived from the East, meaning Egypt. The differences between Wisdom and Asherah far outweigh any similarities.

Yes, roles, images, and symbols. I never stated that Asherah was anything but a symbol.

You said she was merely a symbol? I missed that. But my point is, Wisdom was never considered a real thing. Any reference to her as wife to God is by way of analogy.

Her statement that it is a "implicit metaphor" is correct to the modern way of thinking, but what the ancient thought when writing in Proverbs is anyone's guess. I will agree with her continued statement that "This metaphor attempts to make something that is incomprehensible and abstract into something more comprehensible, more concrete, and more familiar." I believe Asherah was the symbol and the image of a feminine aspect to God's creative powers.

That was Wisdom she is describing in this way, not Asherah. Asherah and Wisdom are not synonymous in the Bible.

It is equally true that Wisdom or hokhma was seen in a very specific role as the creative manifestation of God's powers. I do not believe that Asherah was a ancient "Mother in Heaven" any more than I believe Mary was.

Ok.

Mormon apologists may indeed try to equate the Asherah of the OT with that of the Mormon, "Mother in Heaven", but there isn't an agreement. Yet, the concept of personification of God's creative powers in a feminine motif or "symbol" speaks to an understanding that JS had of ancient sensibilities and thought that escaped his contemporaries.

His "understanding" was nothing more than a very primitive and unsophisticated view of heaven, where divinities and their relationships are explained in familial terms. So we have brothers, sisters, lovers, wives, sons, daughters, life givers, rivalries, etc. It is essentially the same understanding shared by the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians, without the zoomorphic imagery. Ancient Israelites came along more than a thousand years later and so naturally many of these traditions resonated to some degree. We know why they believed in these things. It is because that is what their Mesopotamian ancestors believed. If anything, but Bible goes to great lengths in an attempt to filter that polytheistic thinking out of them. It doesn't establish the older religion's perspective as one of revelation. Far from it actually.

[Xander]

I am hardly an apologist. I am simply a member of the loyal opposition.

Good one.

At this point we are simply talking past each other. I have agreed that Asherah is NOT a product of revelation but the concept behind her, i.e., hokhma was.

OK

Actually it is a very Protestant interpretation.

No it isn't. No one in the Protestant community, that I'm aware of, believes prophets have existed since Christ, and none of them hold to your interpretation that God has done nothing since that time.

>>Jews never understood that scripture accordingly.<< What do you mean here. Jews cannot define how they interpret their scriptures?

Of course they can, and that is my point. They do not interpret it as you have.

I define prophet differently than you would.

You obviously define prophet differently than Protestants and Jews as well, which pretty much means your interpretation of a scripture referring to prophets is not going to be shared by them. And that was my point.

Take a chill pill or I'll have to call your mother. There was corruption and redactions. That's a fact. They weren't major, but they existed. It is the exegete in the last 2000 years who have been the most corrupt. Again, I am not a Mormon apologist, but a person who is trying to understand, if not the theology then the mind of the ancients.

Which "ancients"??

Abstract or not it is simply the writers attempt to give understanding to a subject that was difficult to convey.

And the reason it was difficult was because Wisdom was never understood as a deity or a consort of Yahweh.

Again, Dever expounds on this in his discussion of Patrick Miller's book, Ancient Israelite Religion; "Miller concludes that if the goddess Asherah had been venerated in ancient Israel, it would only have been as a 'hypostatization' of the supposed feminine dimensions of Yahweh. In this process , one aspect of the divine powers if personalized and elevated to the status of a quasi-independent deity. Thus in Proverbs 8 and elsewhere, Hebrew hokma, the 'wisdom' of Yahweh, appears as 'Lady Wisdom' and a participant with Yahweh in creation." (Did God have a Wife p. 199)

And? I'm not sure what this is supposed to be responding to.

Good retort, nasty but good. Also, inaccurate and incorrect. Historians seldom deal with theological issues such as faith or revelation since it involves an understanding of processes that cannot be empirically proven. Dever writes, "...theology may be a legitimate task of the modern exegete, but it must be kept strictly separate from the task of the historian. It is not the historian's job to produce data to justify any particular theological system." (Did God have a Wife?)

Yes, I'm aware of this, which is why I was able to state with confidence that you would not be able to produce any corroboration from these scholars. Ultimately we're just left with your say so that it came from divine revelation.

[volgadon]

Unfortunately, that isn't what we told prospective investigators on our mission.

Speak for yourself.

[Ron Beron]

Xander writes,

Unfortunately, that isn't what we told prospective investigators on our mission.

Actually these are things I told my missionaries when I was taught.

Mormonism is nothing special or unique really since it retains all the same attributes of a man made religion. There is no reason why God's "One True Church" should evolve at all. Saying this is what other religions have done isn't a good justification for it.

Humans have within them the ability to progress and transcend stasis. It is quite normal for us to continue to progress both as individuals and social entities. I do not think it violates the concept of "One True Church". It simply means rotating and expanding around it.

But according to your own source, Wisdom has nothing to do with Asherah and virtually everything to do with Egyptian goddesses Maat, Isis and Hathor. The concept of Wisdom derived from the East, meaning Egypt. The differences between Wisdom and Asherah far outweigh any similarities.

My own opinion holds that Asherah was the profane model for the more profound reality of God's plurality. While we cannot fathom a brain in total without looking at its individual synapses thus we cannot see God without his different manifestations. Wisdom/Asherah/Sophia/Logos is part of that manifestation. The Godhead is part of that manifestation. Simply put we are all part of this gigantic consciousness of God.

You said she was merely a symbol? I missed that. But my point is, Wisdom was never considered a real thing. Any reference to her as wife to God is by way of analogy.

I disagree. Wisdom is just a word. The force behind it was what Hebrews worshiped. God's marital status is not in question, but you are correct in one way and that is the "marriage" is a form of analogy, but one that is both figurative and literal. Figurative in that we use common vernacular to define the relationship, but literal in that it does exist.

That was Wisdom she is describing in this way, not Asherah. Asherah and Wisdom are not synonymous in the Bible.

Again, I disagree. Wisdom was an evolution to Asherah that developed in teh post-exilic world. In Margaret Barker's article, "Where Shall Wisdom be Found", she writes,

Just before the temple was destroyed, there had been a massive purge of the religion of Judah and Jerusalem, usually described as King Josiah’s reform. The Deuteronomists’ own account of this purge makes it clear that an old copy of a law book had been found in the temple, and this prompted the young king to remove from his kingdom everything which did not comply with the regulations of that law book. 2 Kings 23 describes what happened: anything associated with the worship of Baal and Asherah and the host of heaven was removed from the temple and destroyed. The priests whom earlier kings had appointed to burn incense in other cities were deposed, but they would not come to serve in Jerusalem; they stayed in their own areas. The account emphasised the destruction of the Asherah, which was taken from the temple and burned by the Kidron, and the destruction of the houses of the qdsm, a word usually translated male prostitutes, but which should perhaps be read as ‘holy ones, angels’, in view of the fact that Josiah was removing everything connected with the host of heaven. In these houses, women had woven linen garments for Asherah[1]. He also removed horses dedicated to the sun which had stood at the gate of the temple. What the refugees described as abandoning the Queen of Heaven, and Enoch described as forsaking Wisdom must have been this purge by Josiah. What he had tried to destroy was the older religion of Jerusalem and Judah.