Nephi And His Asherah

[Pahoran]

This Barker article is more of the same nonsense I have criticizing.

None of you, including you, Kevin, is willing to come out directly and admit to your belief that the worship of Asherah was a legitimate "revealed" component of pre-exillic Yahweh worship.

Then you ought to accept that they don't necessarily believe that, instead of insinuating that they believe something they don't admit.

Even more significantly, this line of scholarship holds the Church up to mockery amongst Bible believers. http://lifeaftermini...r-of-mormonism/

Well, if that's all you're worried about, I take the mockery from the Great and Spacious Bible-worshippers' Megachurch as praise.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited December 21, 2011 by Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

Then you ought to accept that they don't necessarily believe that, instead of insinuating that they believe something they don't admit.

I don't think I'm insinuating that these good men are unbelievers. I think I'm insinuating that they have become seduced by doctrines of devils.

But my more focused assault is on the nonsense that a believer in the revealed religion can actually say that the fact there was an Asherah pole in the temple means, arguably, that her worship was somehow legit. To so hold is to say that Josiah's reforms were not inspired. Basically, the Hebrew Bible is so much tissue paper.

Look, I don't see my questions being answered. I don't see you answering them; Robert F. Smith, or anybody else.

Edited December 21, 2011 by rcrocket

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't think I'm insinuating that these good men are unbelievers. I think I'm insinuating that they have become seduced by doctrines of devils.

But my more focused assault is on the nonsense that a believer in the revealed religion can actually say that the fact there was an Asherah pole in the temple means, arguably, that her worship was somehow legit. To so hold is to say that Josiah's reforms were not inspired. Basically, the Hebrew Bible is so much tissue paper.

Look, I don't see my questions being answered. I don't see you answering them; Robert F. Smith, or anybody else.

So you are claiming that Josiah's reforms were inspired and that everything before that was uninspired? Or are you making a more nuanced claim?

Are you saying that Hezekiah did not make major reforms? Are you saying that all reforms, regardless of who instituted them are correct? If so, what is the content and rationale of those reforms? Over the course of Classical Israelite history, what sort of description would you provide of the nature of their religion? To what degree were they influenced by surrounding cultures and religions?

To what degree does the biblical record reflect the full circumstances of Israelite history? Indeed, was the biblical record a univocal, once-for-all literary creation by a single authorial tradition? In other words, are the contents of the Bible internally self-consistent, without internal contradictions?

Would you agree with evangelical fundamentalists that the Bible

is divinely inspired and infallible, . . that the Bible contains no error of any kind – not only theological error, but error of any sort of historical, geographical or scientific fact, is completely absent from the Bible?*

* Barr, Fundamentalism, 41-42.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Bob Crockett]

You have a lot of questions. I see that you avoid answering mine -- perhaps you might try?

In order: (1) No. (2) I'm not intending any nuance. (3) No. (4) No. I'm saying that if God endorsed the reforms, as He did for Josiah, they were correct because the Bible says so. (5) Can't be simply answered because you don't identify the reforms. (6) The God-approved religion is as Moses describes. (7) There was influence; God reacted. ( It doesn't. (9). No. (10) No. (11) No.

See, I'm willing to answer your questions. But, my questions are more direct.

I must insist.

1. Do you believe that God revealed to the Moses the correct and true worship of Him? Y/N

2 . Do you believe that before the exile, God - the real God - condemned the worship of Asherah? Y/N

3. Do you believe that the reforms of Josiah were directed by God - the real God? Y/N

4. Do you believe that those reforms included the expurgation of Asherah from the legitimate worship of God? Y/N.

I'm still trying to fathom your practice of highlighting only some of my words. Don't do that; all my words are equally important to the world.

Edited December 21, 2011 by rcrocket

[volgadon]

But my more focused assault is on the nonsense that a believer in the revealed religion can actually say that the fact there was an Asherah pole in the temple means, arguably, that her worship was somehow legit. To so hold is to say that Josiah's reforms were not inspired. Basically, the Hebrew Bible is so much tissue paper.

Right, there is that position, fierce, uncompromising, providing a very comforting feeling of moral and spiritual superiority, towering over those of little faith, those "seduced by doctrines of devils."

OTOH, one can view the Bible differently, without robbing it of its spiritual power for guidance in our daily lives, or for the way it presents ideals of godliness. Not everything in the Bible as we have it today is divine, or even from the proper perspective. Does Joseph Smith declaring an entire book of the Bible uninspired transform the Bible into "so much tissue paper?"

[Bob Crockett]

Right, there is that position, fierce, uncompromising, providing a very comforting feeling of moral and spiritual superiority, towering over those of little faith, those "seduced by doctrines of devils."

OTOH, one can view the Bible differently, without robbing it of its spiritual power for guidance in our daily lives, or for the way it presents ideals of godliness. Not everything in the Bible as we have it today is divine, or even from the proper perspective. Does Joseph Smith declaring an entire book of the Bible uninspired transform the Bible into "so much tissue paper?"

Yes, my statement is strong. I just don't think that it is legitimate to say that Asherah was legitimately worshiped in the temple. I urge you to look beyond the way you don't like my statement and disclose to use whether you think that, yes indeed, Asherah was legitimately worshiped in the temple?

[Kevin Christensen]

Peace on earth, good will to men. That, I believe, is revealed religion. The lack of peace and good will reveals something else. Though, of course, the only place were I can do anything about that is in my own heart. I'm trying here. Please believe that, if nothing else. I really like the Crockett essays on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I see in them evidence of a good mind at work with evident good will. And every time we've disagreed on other topics, I've brought them to my mind and a personal reminder. And believe me that I like Joseph Smith's declaration that "It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine."

It's no secret what I think about Josiah's reforms. "Josiah's changes concerned the high priests, and thus were changes at the very heart of the temple." (See Barker's essay in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem on What King Josiah Reformed.) Nor what I think that Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Lehi and Nephi and Jacob thought of them. The essays are available online. Jeremiah's call (in chapter 1) came the year after the reform began, and against the kings, the princes (city elders, according to John Tvedtnes), the priests, and the people of the land (these being the ones who placed the eight year old Josiah in power, and doubtless had something to do with his education up to the year the reform began. With Jeremiah as a prophet, why was it not Jeremiah's reform? If only the High Priest was supposed to enter the Holy of Holies, and only on the Day of Atonement, why is the King directing Hilkiah to do anything there? What happened to the stories of a well-meaning priest being killed for "steadying the ark" let alone going into the Holy of Holies to remove, and burn. Not to mention public executions of priests.

Perhaps I'm wrong about that. My own studies have been ongoing. In writing Paradigms Regained, I took for granted that Josiah's reforms were a good thing. Later, I asked questions. For instance, in the essay that Jack Welch asked me to write for Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem:

Jacob 4:14 refers to certain Jews at Jerusalem hostile to the prophets"despised the words of plainness" and "look[ed] beyond the mark." Jacob would have learned from Lehi of the violent rivals that Lehi, Jeremiah, and others faced in Jerusalem. As a consequence of their actions, Jacob reports, "God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it." In chapter 4, Jacob reports on the plainness that he emphasizes overall in his ministry, and it is plausible that he would emphasize the very things that he knew had been lost that were all the more precious given his knowledge of that loss. Since Jacob had never been in Jerusalem, he likely obtained from Lehi and Nephi the information about what was lost, or perhaps he drew parallels from Lehi's vision of Jerusalem's destruction (2 Nephi 1:4). It is at least a striking coincidence that Jacob is contemporary with the exile, and his summary of his life teachings in this chapter corresponds point for point to Barker's analysis of what had been lost at that very time and who was responsible.

Lehi? His visions in the first chapter and his vision of the Tree of Life include the very things that the reformers attacked. God surrounded by numberless concourses of Angels? The one descending followed by 12? The tree of life? And think about Lehi's first public discourse after his visions, the one that got him into trouble. He says that there is to be a Messiah and the Redemption of the World. So, why does that get him in trouble? Barker observes that the Messiah means "the anointed" and specifically refers to the High Priest who would enter the Holy of Holies only on the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement ritual represented the redemption of the world. The anointing oil disappears from the temple at the time the reformers, which meant that the priests were no longer anointed but the priests of the many colored robes. And Deuteronomy 16 leaves the Day of Atonement from the sacred calendar. Margaret's approach provides me with an explanation of why Lehi saw what he saw, said what he said, and why he got in trouble. She also points out that everything that the reformers suppressed returns with Christianity.

And Jeremiah?

The keynote of the Deuteronomists is their regard for written law. Deuteronomy 4 depicts Moses as informing Israel: "Keep therefore and do them [that is, the statutes and judgments of the law]; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people" (Deuteronomy 4:6).

Jeremiah seems to be commenting on this very passage:

How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them? (Jeremiah 8:8—9)

With respect to the law and those who had charge of it, Jeremiah comments that "they that handle the law knew me not (Jeremiah 2:.

Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. (Jeremiah 23:30)

And the burden of the Lord shall ye mention no more: for every man's word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the Lord of hosts our God. (Jeremiah 23:36)

Deuteronomy relates the following: "And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice" (Deuteronomy 4:12). Barker notes the direct contradiction with the account in Exodus 24:9—11, which reports that Moses, Aaron, and seventy elders of Israel "saw the God of Israel." Jeremiah speaks as one who has seen:

For who hath stood in the counsel of the Lord, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it? (Jeremiah 23:18; compare theophanies in Isaiah 6 and 1 Enoch)

But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings. (Jeremiah 23:22)

Deuteronomy says that "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deuteronomy 29:29). Further, it explains that "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?" (Deuteronomy 30:11—12).

Against this, Jeremiah speaks as one who has been invited to learn and declare the secret things: "Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not" (Jeremiah 33:3).

Barker's work is particularly interesting in observing that the Hebrew Bible contains passages that have been deliberately obscured, rendered unreadable. She observes that such passages are not random, but occur in passages that were important to the Christians. The Dead Scrolls provide pre-Christian Hebrew for comparison. All in all the story that she tells strikes me as exactly matching the picture in 1 Nephi 13 concerning the transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures.

So, I'm an active believing Mormon. If I was at all terrified with what majority opinions were, or that a lot of people love to make fun of Mormons, I wouldn't be here. (Pahoran appropriately calls to mind the Great and Spacious and the pointing and mocking fingers). It helps a lot that I can think for myself, and that I have learned from Kuhn that people make their paradigms by means of standard examples, (which I do not accept as fair or generally representative or even accurate) from which they typically over generalize about the whole. In looking at the mockery and those who do it, I've learned to look to the foundations upon which it is built. I find that when I do, I don't feel shame, but pity for those who build on such sand.

Robert says:

Plainly, the God of the Old Testament condemns the very things you and these silly papers espouse.

The article of faith I have is that "the Bible is the word of God as far as translated correctly," recognizing that in Joseph Smith's day and in his use "translate" also includes meanings of transmit and interpret.

As I read the contradictory accounts of Josiah's reform, particularly in comparison to other materials, such as 1 Nephi 1 and Jacob 4, and Jeremiah, and 1 Enoch, and Ezekiel, I see some obvious tensions and contradiction. And the obviously corrupted state of key passages turns out to be very telling as well. I happen to believe that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament, and the God of the Book of Mormon, and the God who spoke to Joseph Smith. The larger picture suggests to me that transmitters of the MT Hebrew weren't always conveying the word and will of the God of the Old Testament, particularly in relation to Josiah and the Reform.

So now, to questions:

"Let me post my new questions. Can you, Kevin, answer without equivocation? (Equivocation involving changing definitions within an argument.

1. Do you believe that God revealed to the Moses the correct and true worship of Him? Y/N

Yes. Revelation being one thing, and transmission and interpretation, another.

2 . Do you believe that before the exile, God - the real God - condemned the worship of Asherah? Y/N

No. Nor encouraged as far as that goes. I just think their Wisdom mythos had a place for her presence in the overall scheme of things.

3. Do you believe that the reforms of Josiah were directed by God - the real God? Y/N

No.

4. Do you believe that those reforms included the expurgation of Asherah from the legitimate worship of God? Y/N.

Yes.

"Yes, these are legalistic questions. They may seem unfair to you."

Yes. They seem unfair to because I don't believe they seek not to understand or persuade or enlighten, but to seek ground to condemn.

"But they legitimately seek to pin you down to determine whether you, Kevin, believe."

I disagree with their legitimacy and any approach that strives to "pin you down." Mormonism is not a static, closed religion, defined by creeds and canon, but a fountain, open to further light and knowledge and all topics. And of course, by temperament (INFP) and Perry Scheme classification, (level 9), I prefer different ways of relating to people as more productive of peace and good will.

But if you needed to pin someone down, Merry Christmas. Do with my answers what you will. I'm still impressed and grateful for you your work on MMM.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited December 21, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[volgadon]

Yes, my statement is strong. I just don't think that it is legitimate to say that Asherah was legitimately worshiped in the temple. I urge you to look beyond the way you don't like my statement and disclose to use whether you think that, yes indeed, Asherah was legitimately worshiped in the temple?

Harsh, more like. We can pretend that I didn't notice how you avoided replying to the question I posed on the status of Canticles.

Asheroth were definitely a legitimate feature of Israelite temples and worship.

Now it is well known that throughout the ancient Near East from Mesopotamia to Egypt, as well as in the Aegean and Minoan areas, the phenomenon of the sacred tree existed- not necessarily as an object of worship in itself, so much as the locus of a numinous presence.

It was, therefore, an ideal place for theophany and worship. The tree served as a medium of oracles and revelation.

-Nahum Sarna, "Genesis 21:33: A Study in the Developement of a Biblical Text and its Rabbinic Transformation." in J Neusner, E.S. Frerichs and N.M. Sarna, eds., From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism. Intellect in Quest of Understanding. Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, pp. 69-75.

Asherah as a proper noun refers to the Canaanite goddess who was represented as a tree. In the Israelite cult, however, it was an object representing the ability of YHWH- giver and sustainer of life- to bless his followers, as well as signifying his presence.

This of course easily lent itself to worship of an Israelite form of the Canaanite goddess, witnessed by the dozens of figurines discovered in archaeological digs. This, as well as the political dangers inherent in worship of what could be seen as a Canaanite deity, is what ultimately led to Josiah's purge of the asheroth.

Nephi's vision is an interplay of the two understandings of asherah- a tree and a female figure. Both represent God and his ability to bless his followers.

This view isn'toriginaltome, David Bokovoy first pointed it out.

As for the reforms themselves, if we take the current record at face value then only a single temple at Jersulaem has any legitimacy, yet ours dot the earth. Lehi and co. built a temple themselves. This would indicate that the reforms had a far more limited effect on the religious mores of the people than one would assume by reading the Bible.

Edited December 21, 2011 by volgadon

[Bill Hamblin]

1. Do you believe that God revealed to the Moses the correct and true worship of Him? Y/N

2 . Do you believe that before the exile, God - the real God - condemned the worship of Asherah? Y/N

3. Do you believe that the reforms of Josiah were directed by God - the real God? Y/N

4. Do you believe that those reforms included the expurgation of Asherah from the legitimate worship of God? Y/N.

I'll have a go at it, though I must say none of the questions really permit a Y/N answer. The successful study of the Bible requires nuanced interpretations, not fundamentalistic dualism.

1. Do you believe that God revealed to the Moses the correct and true worship of Him? Y/N

Of course. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the biblical record we have is preserved in a complete or accurate form. Some material was probably lost, some changed, and some added. Nor does it means that the texts have always been interpreted correctly. This should be obvious from an LDS perspective from the Book of Moses. Indeed, the BOM claims "plain and precious things" have been taken from the Bible (1 Ne. 13). Nephi insists "now, if I do err, even did they err of old" (1 Ne. 19:6), which, from Nephi's perspective, can only mean the authors of the Hebrew Bible erred. What are the errors in the Hebrew Bible? Modern scholarship has also demonstrated this same type of editing through both textual criticism and higher criticism. (The BOM is a self-admitted edited book, probably reflecting the type of thing that happened to the Hebrew Bible.) This means that what we have in the five books of Moses in the current Hebrew Bible is not necessarily an accurate or complete record of what God revealed to Moses.

2 . Do you believe that before the exile, God - the real God - condemned the worship of Asherah? Y/N

Of course. However, there are again all sorts of nuances. First, there were lots of different denominations and factions within ancient Judaism, just like there are today, and were in the time of Jesus--for which we have much more evidence. Each of these factions believed that God had revealed and authorized their particular ideas and forms of worship. For the Hebrew Bible we only have the surviving records of one groups particular beliefs and practices, although the ideas of alternate factions can be found behind the scenes in all sorts of ways. The most clear example comes from Jeremiah 44:17-19:

17 But we will do everything that we have vowed, make offerings to nthe queen of heaven oand pour out drink offerings to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our officials, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no disaster. 18 But since we left off making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything qand have been consumed by the sword and by famine.” 19 And the women said, “When we made offerings to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, was it swithout our husbands’ approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her?”

There is no reason to believe that these people did not sincerely think that their veneration of the Queen of Heaven was not offensive to YHWH. They thought they were doing the right thing.

The correct question is not, did God condemn the worship of Asherah? but, what did God condemn about the worship of Asherah? 1- worshipping a God other than YHWH? 2- worshipping Asherah in the temple (as opposed to YHWH alone)? 3- worshipping in High Places outside the temple? 4- specific cultic practices? 5- ritual prostitution? The fact of the matter is, many Israelites worshipped Asherah and thought they were doing the will of YHWH by so doing. This is clear both from the Bible, and from archaeological and inscriptional evidence.

Is it possible that there was a time when a legitimate form of worship of Asherah was acceptable to YHWH. It's not clear. But there are other related examples. For example, the nechustan (Brazen Serpent totem) of Moses was venerated by the Israelites and kept in the temple, but was destroyed by Josiah.

He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan). (2 Kgs. 18:4)

So, the Lord commanded Moses to make the bronze serpent (Num. 21:8-9), and then commanded Josiah to destroy it. Why was it legitimate in the days of Moses but had become an abomination in the days of Josiah? We aren't told explicitly. But it seems clear to me that it is possible for something to be acceptable under certain conditions, but to become profaned and distorted and apostate.

If the Queen of Heaven is an authentic archaic proto-conceptualization of the Mother in Heaven (and we don't know it it was), then it might simply be that the syncretization of the authentic Mother in Heaven with Canaanite Asherah may have corrupted the conceptions and ritual of Asherah to the point where it needed purging. I should note that the fact that the Patriarchs and Israelites worshipped El and the Canaanites also worshipped El, that this means that the Israelites and Canaanites necessarily conceptualized El the same, or that they worshipped El in the same way.

3. Do you believe that the reforms of Josiah were directed by God - the real God? Y/N

Yes. But that does not mean everything Josiah did was commanded by YHWH. For example, in 2 Kgs. 23 Josiah "sacrificed (yezbāḥ) all the priests of the high places who were there, on the altars, and burned human bones on them." So, do I think that YHWH really commanded that all the priests of the High Places should be sacrificed as burnt offerings? No, I don't. I don't think God demands human sacrifice. I think it really happened, but I don't think God authorized it. On the other hand I think the Reformers of Josiah did think God wanted this. Josiah's reformers were attempting to make legitimate and needed reforms, but they also went to excess, making unauthorized reforms.

4. Do you believe that those reforms included the expurgation of Asherah from the legitimate worship of God? Y/N.

Yes, they clearly did. But again, the situation requires careful reading and nuanced interpretation.

But take Solomon for example. In 1 Kgs. 2 Solomon worships at the High Place of Gibeon--the Gibeonites being Canaanites who had tricked Joshua into making a peace covenant (Josh. 9), allowing them to keep their old ways (2 Sam. 21:3). Solomon worships at their High Place (indeed, they had been tasked with bringing wood and water "for the altar of the Lord" (Josh. 9:27)). There Solomon received a great theophany (1 Kgs. 5-14)--YHWH appeared to him at a Canaanite High Place!. The Chronicler, however, objected to this account, and added that the tent of meeting was at the High Place of Gibeon, even though the Ark was in Jerusalem (2 Chr. 1:1-5, 13). Thus, the Canaanite High Place was legitimized by the presence of the Israelite tent shrine. So, was Solomon worshipping YHWH in an illegitimate way at a High Place, as the reformers of Josiah would have maintained (2 Kgs. 23)? If so, why did he receive a theophany from God there? And note that the shrines to the goddess Ashtoreth that Solomon had built east of Jerusalem (1 Kgs. 11:4-10) were still operating in the time of Josiah (2 Kgs. 23:13), despite the reforms of Hezekiah. Why had Hezekiah not destroyed them? (The Chronicler, again attempting to sanitize Solomon, doesn't mention his apostasy or his build shrines and venerating the foreign gods.)

Edited December 21, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Ron Beron]

I must insist.

1. Do you believe that God revealed to the Moses the correct and true worship of Him? Y/N

2 . Do you believe that before the exile, God - the real God - condemned the worship of Asherah? Y/N

3. Do you believe that the reforms of Josiah were directed by God - the real God? Y/N

4. Do you believe that those reforms included the expurgation of Asherah from the legitimate worship of God? Y/N.

I'm still trying to fathom your practice of highlighting only some of my words. Don't do that; all my words are equally important to the world.

The problem with your questioning is that you are setting up a litmus test of belief based not on what the church asks of us, but what you think is appropriate. I would be willing to sit in a temple recommend and answer yes or no to those questions asked because they are legitimate and because they determine the nature of our faith, but your questions above qualify only your own agenda in determining a false paradigm.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Ron Beron

[Bob Crockett]

The problem with your questioning is that you are setting up a litmus test of belief based not on what the church asks of us, but what you think is appropriate. I would be willing to sit in a temple recommend and answer yes or no to those questions asked because they are legitimate and because they determine the nature of our faith, but your questions above qualify only your own agenda in determining a false paradigm.

That simply is not true. You're resorting to web-blog buzz-phrases to marginalize my points -- "your own agenda", "false paradigm," "What you think [is irrelevant']." Of course, when I ask questions or state opinions, they are only mine and mine alone. I don't purport to speak for the Church. But, I have no other way communicating my thoughts about the worship of God, the Gospel and the scriptures other than to use the King's English to state my views.

[Bob Crockett]

Thank you, Dr. Hamblin, for responding to my posts. And, thank your Kevin Christiansen for responding to my posts.

Dr. Hamblin, you note early in your post that we should remember that the Hebrew Bible is not necessarily an accurate or complete record of what God revealed to Moses. And, of course, I cannot deny that point. But, I'd like to start with the presumption that God, indeed, revealed something, as opposed to nothing, to Moses and that the principles revealed to Moses were immutable, well, for the time being. The question of the day is whether he authorized, or intimated, the worship of Asherah or her veneration, or whether He condemned it.

Our only scriptural answer is that He condemned her worship, and early. Exodus 34:13; Deut. 7:5; Deut 12:3.

What then justified interpreting the Hebrew Bible in a way that is diametrically opposite to what the text says? As best as I can summarize it, LDS and non-LDS Hebraists theorize that because the worship of Asherah is commonly (i.e, vulgarly) found, and for 2/3rs during the temple's history found, along with the worship of Yahweh, she must have been worshiped. The Hebrew Bible would say that, yes, such is true, but this was the sort of apostate worship God condemned and which the Hebrews had a difficult time rooting out. The avante garde LDS scholar would, however, find solace in the findings of the secular Hebraists who feel no need to presume that God has, indeed, revealed Himself to man.

You say: "There is no reason to believe that these people did not sincerely think that their veneration of the Queen of Heaven was not offensive to YHWH. They thought they were doing the right thing." You cite to Jeremiah's discussion of the Queen of Heaven, and reason that that the people thought they were "doing the right thing, " even though in the same chapter God calls this conduct detestable to the point that the Jews could no longer call upon the name of God. Jer. 44. The good intentions are no justification; the worshipers of Molech had good intentions as they murdered their infants. Depth of feeling does not make apostasy orthodoxy, and I think any LDS scholar sidling up to the through of rank Canaanite apostasy as some sort of justification for a very speculative LDS teaching is asking for criticism from people like me.

You say, "[t]he correct question is not, did God condemn the worship of Asherah? But, what did God condemn about the worship of Asherah?" I wonder why it is necessary to recast the question; the text we have is that God condemned Asherah without equivocation. I suppose there is a reason for that condemnation, but as members of a revealed faith we know that the reasons for God's commands are not necessarily important for us to know.

As a way to perhaps deflect the unconditional condemnation of Asherah, you note the story that the Lord commanded Moses to make the bronze serpent (Num. 21:8-9), and then commanded Josiah to destroy it. You ask, "Why was it legitimate in the days of Moses but had become an abomination in the days of Josiah? We aren't told explicitly. But it seems clear to me that it is possible for something to be acceptable under certain conditions, but to become profaned and distorted and apostate. " Most commentaries I have read on the subject state the obvious reason was that Israel venerated a physical thing when God condemned the veneration of physical things. God raised Saul up as His anointed and then struck him down in a chariot because Saul erred.

But, what is particularly compelling about your story is that nowhere in the Hebrew or Christian scriptures do we find a similar volte face with respect to Asherah. Because, as a legal matter, the absence of evidence is indeed the evidence of absence, I'd say that Asherah, when stacked up against the story of bronze serpent, comes out the loser. Merely because God supposedly reversed His command in one case does not mean that we should assume that he would reverse His command in every case. Especially where He hasn’t.

When I asked you about the legitimacy of the Josiah reform, wherein the worship of Asherah was supposed to be rooted out, you question the reforms by pointing to 2 Kings 23, wherein it was said that he "sacrificed (yezbāḥ) all the priests of the high places who were there, on the altars, and burned human bones on them." You question this slaughter of the priests and the burning of their bones to suggest that the following was, as well, error: "He took the Asherah pole from the temple of the Lord . . .and burned it . . . . He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes that were in the temple of the LORD, the quarter where women did weaving for Asherah." 2 Kings 23:6-7. You opine that you don' t think God really commanded the slaughter of the priests of Molech. Kevin joins in that argument. I consider this thinking a sort of “New Age” relativistic view of how God should act; never mind that Jesus said nasty things about whited sepulchers and implied that a Canaanite mother with a sick daughter was a dog. Somehow I don't see the massacre of Molech’s priests to be any different than Moses commanding the slaughter of 3000 at Sinai, the beheading of Laban, or many similar incidents in the Bible. But I don't think you can ignore the universal condemnation Asherah elsewhere by questioning Josiah in one instance.

Kevin asks, "[w]ith Jeremiah as a prophet, why was in not Jeremiah's reform?" What an interesting question, but only a question a Latter-day Saint would ask. The term "prophet" was not a priestly title, and at times prophets were a dime a dozen in the Hebrew Bible. Jeremiah had no priestly or political authority, at least as far as I can tell. He may have been a priest, but Josiah had the royal power to require reform. A prophet’s job, in Israel was, as Ratzinger says was not necessarily to be a soothsayer but to “show[] us the face of God, and in so doing he shows us the path that we have to take.” (Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Jesus of Nazareth, 4 (New York: Doubleday 2007). I cite Ratzinger to show that the role of a Israelite prophet was not to be the president of a Church. Jeremiah’s job was to declare God to Israel. Somebody else ran the Temple.

I would question the condemnation of Josiah's reform as a means to bring Asherah forth in all her glory from the cesspool. From a Church editorial, "Josiah Follows Book of the Law, Walks 'In the Way of the Lord,", Church News 07/28/90, we read that "Josiah was among Judah's few 'godly kings,' those who reigned in righteousness." "Although he was but a boy, Josiah "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David . . . and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left." (2 Kgs. 22:2.) . . . Because of what he heard read from the book of the law, Josiah instituted a reform program. He ordered the destruction of idols and groves (places where idols of nature were worshipped)." I can certainly cite to numerous texts where Josiah is used as an example of righteousness in rooting out the idols.

You, Dr. Hamblin, observe that the shrines to Ashtoreth were still operating at the time of Josiah, and you ask why did Hezekiah not destroy them. But, the Hebrew Bible is full of examples of the failure of Israelite kings to fully accomplish God's will. By your thinking, the Philistines must be God's people because the Israelites were not able to do as God commanded. Once again, you cite failures to adhere to the command of God as evidence that God really did not intend that His commands be fulfilled. But, at least from a legal perspective, the exception does not establish the rule.

Lastly, I take up Dr. Hamblin's reference to Solomon worshiping at the high place of Gibeon instead of where the ark was located. I'm not sure why this particular example counters dozens of references condemning Asherah. No doubt it seems odd that Solomon worshiped at a "high place" at Gibeon (2 Chron 1:3), when elsewhere high places are condemned (Lev. 26:30, Num. 33:52; Deut. 12:2), but in these references God commands the Israelites to demolish the high places of the idols. (Num. 33:52.) It seems that certain high places for the worship of Yahweh were acceptable, although I would rather see this as a Biblical incongruity. (1 Sam 9:12 [samuel sacrificing at a high place].) [is a "familiar spirit" something having to do with necromancy or the Book of Mormon?] I have no ready explanation for this possible incongruity, but Biblical incongruity is no justification for explaining away, for example, God's declaration that homosexuality is an abomination.

In sum, I object to using Asherah as a means to besmirch the very sacred and undiscussed Mother in Heaven. No more, no less.

By the way, the story of the people of Gibeon is one of my favorites, which I use routinely to discuss how Mark Hoffman deceived the Brethren. Thanks for referencing it.

Edited December 22, 2011 by rcrocket

[Ron Beron]

That simply is not true. You're resorting to web-blog buzz-phrases to marginalize my points -- "your own agenda", "false paradigm," "What you think [is irrelevant']." Of course, when I ask questions or state opinions, they are only mine and mine alone. I don't purport to speak for the Church. But, I have no other way communicating my thoughts about the worship of God, the Gospel and the scriptures other than to use the King's English to state my views.

I wouldn't know a "web-blog buzz phrase" if it bit me in the keister. If you didn't intend to qualify your own opinions about the supposed misdirection of secular Mormons then why ask them?

[Nathair/|\]

Our friend, Kerry Shirts, recently posted a video that seems relevant.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Mother in Heaven is not undiscussed, nor is there anything in the least bit indecorous about actively talking about her. (Please see "A Mother There: A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven" by David Paulsen and Martin Pulido for BYU studies.)

Does She really need the accusatory inquisition-esque questioning of other faithful Latter-Day Saints to defend against being "besmirched"? Well, regardless:

1. Do you believe that God revealed to the Moses the correct and true worship of Him?

Yes. But I do not believe that our current texts are particularly accurate about recording it. The retroactive tampering with the Bible which has occurred is pervasive and pretty obvious, what with the innumerable outright contradictions within it. It is clearly, at the very least, not a univocal text. (And speaking of various Old Testament laws, have fun with the Law Code of Hammurabi)

2 . Do you believe that before the exile, God - the real God - condemned the worship of Asherah?

No. Not in the patriarchal narratives, at least - see Abraham planting his groves and Jacob with his rod of poplar. If he did condemn anything, it was some of the excesses which had perverted Asherah-worship. If anything, the Apostasy was the move away from the Divine Family during the swing towards philosophical monotheism.

3. Do you believe that the reforms of Josiah were directed by God - the real God?

No. Heavens, no. A great deal of the historical stuff in the Old Testament is honestly just one horrifying example after another of religious fanaticism coupled with political expediency. That the text retroactively claims any given person to be "good" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my judgment of what they are actually recorded as doing. That the text retroactively claims certain actions and beliefs to be "evil" has nothing whatsoever to do with my judgment of their morality.

As Joseph Smith said, "many things in the Bible ... do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelation of the Holy Ghost to me."

The bottom line is: if you think there is no difference between Nephi's killing and, say, that of Joshua 6:21 ... man. That is one scary-a$$ God you're asking me to worship.

4. Do you believe that those reforms included the expurgation of Asherah from the legitimate worship of God?

Of course they included the expurgation of Asherah. That's the problem.

...

The Wisdom literature is interconnected with polytheistic Egyptian thought. Lady Wisdom is said to have been present before the foundation of the earth. The intertestamental 1 Enoch 94.5 says to "Hold fast my words in the thoughts of your hearts, and suffer them not to be effaced from your hearts; for I know that sinners will tempt men to evilly-entreat Wisdom, so that no place may be found for Her."

The New Testament quotes Enoch in hundreds of places. Meanwhile, Titus 3:5 speaks of "a bathing of regeneration, and a renewing of the Holy Spirit, which He poured upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour." He is our Savior because He used the Temple of His physical body to become a Template for how we are to be: One with each other, whether male or female, the way He and the Father are One - ie, not the logic-breaking paradox propounded by those desperate to be sophisticated and unique with their philosophical monotheism, but rather a metaphorical Unity in which all Uncreated Intelligences are reconciled by taking part in the work of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. (D&C 103:10: "Inasmuch as [we] are not the saviors of men, [we] are as salt that has lost its savor.")

Clearly we believe in more than one God, and in the divinity of females. What matters is not whether other Gods and Goddesses exist - that's a concern dragged in from the western world's millenia-long obsession with philosophical monotheism - but rather what those Gods do. As we know, the Accuser was once beloved, who fell from grace because he desired sole worship; the goddess Anath was not a pleasant character either. On the other hand, we also have good Gods, like the Heavenly Parents whose family we want to be adopted into, who work to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of their children.

In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit was signified by a Dove, the common goddess-symbol of that era. If the Dove had to be renewed in Christ's time, that means it had been present before His time and lost. In John's Revelation, the Queen of Heaven (associated with the heavenly Tree of Life) flies to earth on eagle's wings.

Asherah, the Queen of Heaven, was also, naturally enough, represented with a bird-face. Her name means "She Who Treads On The Sea." The Book of Abraham tells us that during the Creation, "darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the [Dove of the] Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters." "Brooding" - like a hen. The Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses conflict deeply; whereas the earlier Abraham describes "Gods", the later edit found in the Book of Moses describes a singular "God." The transition from a polytheistic to a monotheistic worldview is preserved in the Pearl of Great Price.

Corinthians emphasizes that it is through the Holy Spirit that we receive the Word of Wisdom - ie, the gifts of Lady Wisdom from Proverbs. There, Lady Wisdom is said to be a Tree of Life to those who grasp Her. (Cue the Eve sections of the Book of Moses, where the Spirit descends upon the lovers, whereupon the woman "heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth," restoring the divine feminine wisdom of the Tree - attested in so many other cultures - to the polemical male-centric Genesis account.) Chapter five of the Book of Jacob stresses that all the scattered tribes must be brought back and grafted in with their "mother tree," and the very designation of Mary as being the mother "of the flesh" of Christ implies that there also exists a mother of his spirit.

An interesting verse from the Gospel of the Birth of Mary states that "Isaiah saith, there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall spring out of its root, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, the Spirit of Counsel and Might, the Spirit of Knowledge and Piety, and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him. Then, according to this prophecy, he appointed, that all the men of the house and family of David, who were marriageable, and not married, should bring their several rods to the altar, and out of whatsoever person's rod after it was brought, a flower should bud forth, and on the top of it the Spirit of the Lord should sit in the appearance of a dove, he should be the man to whom the Virgin should be given and be betrothed."

The Spirit is Lady Wisdom, is the Dove, is the Tree of Life, is Asherah, is the Queen of the Divine Family. Because the living Tree had been taken from the Temple and turned it into an empty, spacious building built for an unknowable paradox of a God, Lehi and his family journeyed to a place where it might be remembered, as in Alma. "Ye are Gods," Christ said. Male and female, we who are commanded to "be fruitful" are gods ... "detestable" fertility gods and goddesses in embryo, every one of us.

Edited December 22, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Also: Kerry is a crazy man, but I love that guy.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Wow. Wow.

Kevin linked to an essay by Margaret Barker earlier, and in my haste I assumed it was her paper "Where Shall Wisdom Be Found?" (which is itself excellent reading).

On closer inspection, I find that it's not. It's called "The Images of Mary in the Litany of Loreto", and it is fantastic. I've been working on a paper this past summer and fall on a similar topic, and I've read most of the sources she quotes (and many that she didn't cite), and I came to nearly the exact same conclusions she did completely independent of her essay. It's an extremely important and masterful encapsulation, and I urge everyone to read it and pass it along. I'm posting it to Facebook right after I get done here; hopefully it'll take off. It's all about viral networking, people! Hop!

Wow. Thanks for sharing that one, Kevin.

Edited December 22, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[LeSellers]

Worshiping the wife of God may never have been a feature of Mosaic religion. However, that is far from saying it was never a part of true religion. Moses didn't show up on the scene for a millennium following Noah. People had had prophets all during that time, but we have no record of them nor of their teachings. However that may be, it is apparent that they were true prophets, and that their worship was in accord with God's commands.

When the ark lighted on Mt Ararat, Noah immediately built an altar (which means "high place", btw) and offered sacrifice. His son, Shem received the priesthood. This is not biblical, but LDS doctrine ("Shem, the great high priest", Doc&Cov 137) and was later known* as Melchizedek (also called "the great high priest"), which means "king of righteousness". It was to him Abraham referred hen he talked about the rights of the fathers in Ab 1. It was to him that Abram paid tithes following the rescue of Lot, and it was he who blessed Abram.

* Some reject the Shem=Melchizedek position.. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter too much, because even if Melchizedek was Shem's son or grandson, the same arguments apply. It is noteworthy, however, that Genesis explicitly says that Shem was still alive until after Abraham died (although before Joseph was born). So, whomever it was to whom Abram paid his tithes, Shem was the presiding High Priest.

Abraham received the promise that his posterity would inherit the land of Canaan, but, curiously, the gift was delayed for 400 years because the Amorites had not become sufficiently iniquitous (Gen 15:16).

Four centuries later, when Joshua led the children of Israel into Canaan, he was warned that he must destroy all the inhabitants of the land because if he did not (and he failed), the Israelites would be polluted by the idolatry of the old settlers. But these old settlers were the very people who had been led by Melchizedek. Their religion, even though apostate by that time, had come with Noah through the flood, so whatever it was that was in error, had had some basis in revelation, however badly corrupted.

The most heinous of the practices of the Canaanites was that of ritualistic prostitution, wherein a woman would give herself up for sex with another worshiper because they believed that this act would encourage the gods (El/Ba`al and Astoreth/Asherah) themselves to mate, and this mating would bring the rains required for crops to grow and herds to increase (among other things, not least: women to conceive, bear, and nurse children).

It is obvious that, in their view, god was married. It seems reasonable to extrapolate from this apostate form of religion that God has a Wife, and that, at one point in the past, that He had made Their relationship known to those who worshiped Him (and Them). However, they had warped this truth into the most disgusting and abominable form and carried that distortion into a practice that lost them the covenant claims to the Priesthood, and to the Promised Land. Abraham alone had retained the true knowledge of what it meant for God to be married. But from that point forward, God was trying to pick up His pearls from before the swine who had metaphorically shamed His Wife (our Mother) and desecrated Her. No more wold He allow us to profane Her like that, so He has hidden Her from us ever since, although not completely because it is still important for us to know She exists, and that She is the model for the daughters of Eve (as He is for the sons of Adam) in matters of spiritual advancement.

I firmly believe that Mother exists. I believe, but not so completely, that She was once a major feature of the revealed, true religion of God and that Her children worshiped Her because God commanded them to do so. I am convinced that worshiping Her today is wrong, not because She is unimportant, but because She is too important for worship given the fact that our ancestors betrayed Her. Father will not let us denigrate Her as we have done in the past, and will hold us accountable if we ignore that edict.

Lehi

Edited December 22, 2011 by LeSellers

[Robert F. Smith]

You have a lot of questions. I see that you avoid answering mine -- perhaps you might try?

In order: (1) No. (2) I'm not intending any nuance. (3) No. (4) No. I'm saying that if God endorsed the reforms, as He did for Josiah, they were correct because the Bible says so. (5) Can't be simply answered because you don't identify the reforms. (6) The God-approved religion is as Moses describes. (7) There was influence; God reacted. ( It doesn't. (9). No. (10) No. (11) No.

See, I'm willing to answer your questions. But, my questions are more direct.

I must insist.

1. Do you believe that God revealed to the Moses the correct and true worship of Him? Y/N

2 . Do you believe that before the exile, God - the real God - condemned the worship of Asherah? Y/N

3. Do you believe that the reforms of Josiah were directed by God - the real God? Y/N

4. Do you believe that those reforms included the expurgation of Asherah from the legitimate worship of God? Y/N.

I'm still trying to fathom your practice of highlighting only some of my words. Don't do that; all my words are equally important to the world.

I highlight the words you recklessly use in contravention of propriety and sound logic, hoping (apparently erroneously) that you might turn over a new leaf and repent of your evil speaking of people when not justified by anything they have actually said or even implied.

As to your questions, most are insincere and assume the negative rather than follow logically from the discussion and any statements made by those whom you seek to interrogate. The questions are designed for pettifogging and obfuscation rather than clarity or the defense of God and true religion. Such questions are typical of the preliminaries of an inquisition by an Amulek or de Torquemada.

You have no shame . . .

[Bob Crockett]

Yeouch! That stings! A pettifogging Torquemada! I still love your posts; you're a good man.

I just have my minor opinions which sometimes contravene conventional wisdom here.

Edited December 24, 2011 by rcrocket

[Minos]

Is everyone going to be on their best behavior or is it time to close the thread?

[Bob Crockett]

The most heinous of the practices of the Canaanites was that of ritualistic prostitution, wherein a woman would give herself up for sex with another worshiper because they believed that this act would encourage the gods (El/Ba`al and Astoreth/Asherah) themselves to mate, and this mating would bring the rains required for crops to grow and herds to increase (among other things, not least: women to conceive, bear, and nurse children).

Dever argues against this, that this notion is a misogyonistic trick of the post-exillic editors.

[Ron Beron]

"pettifogging and obfuscation"

I like it when someone using muliti-syllabic wording.

[Ron Beron]

Is everyone going to be on their best behavior or is it time to close the thread?

We'll be good (Or at least, I will.)

[Kevin Christensen]

Elsewhere Gerald Smith provides a useful post on the The Book of Mormon and the Documentary Hypothesis.

http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2011/12/27/the-book-of-mormon-and-the-documentary-hypothesis-from-gerald-smith/#comment-37402

Relevant to the question of Jeremiah's view of the Josiah and the Reformers, I like his fresh observation of an implication of the story of the Rechabites in Jer. 35.

Here, Jeremiah takes the nomads into the temple, as an example of what Judah should be doing. While the Jews worship in the temple, Jeremiah proclaims they are serving other gods! Why would this be, if the Deuteronomist reforms were a good thing? Instead, they changed God’s true temple worship into something else.

Nibley, of course, associated Lehi with the Rechabites based on journey to Bountiful. John Welch compared the Narrative of Zosimus (or History of the Rechabites) to the 1 Nephi account. A more recent essay by Jeffery Thompson and Welch appears in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem.

And I've argued at greater length on the topic of Jeremiah and the Reform in various essays here and there, including some here:

http://www.thinlyveiled.com/kchristensen.htm

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA