Institute For Religious Research Study Guide Challenge Redux

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Some non-canonical speculation to consider:

Holy Spirit of Wisdom = Lady Wisdom (Sophia) = Tree of Life = Asherah = Shaddai

As Nibley pointed out in The Expanding Gospel, the editors of the Bible made it a point to try to downplay the "primitive/mythical" idea of the multi-gendered Divine Council which is richly attested throughout the rest of the ancient Near East and beyond. In the latter sections of his book Abraham in Egypt, especially The Deseret Connection (a woefully neglected and undervalued contribution), he also brings in the voluminous Goddess material related to this theme (see Marija Gimbutas for more. And Harriet Lutzky's "Shadday as a Goddess Epithet [for Asherah]" which shows how the Akkadian "mountains" referenced by the name are likely to be, like the Grand Teatons, a reference to a female divinity.)

As I wrote in an earlier thread about Asherah, Nibs also brings in the Egyptian Ma'at and shows how she is connected with the Wisdom (hokhmah, Sophia) traditions. (Though I disagree with his argument that Pharaoh's sin was to try to trace his Priesthood through the matriarchal line, since we are explicitly told in the Pearl of Great Price that Priesthood [which is eternal, without mother or father, or beginning of days] is not interchangeable or to be conflated with Patriarchy, which was something that "the fathers" set up, as, again, Marija Gimbutas shows at length.)

Dan Peterson, Mike Heiser, and David Bokovoy have a great back-and-forth that is really necessary reading for this conversation:

In Ye Are Gods, Peterson examines the Divine Council.

In Heiser's critique, he tries (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to refute Peterson.

In Ye Really Are Gods, Bokovoy discusses the flaws in Heiser's argument.

Christ taught that we are all Children of our Father in Heaven, and his mission was to offer a renewal of the Holy Spirit to us - specifically, for our Rebirth. How much more explicit does He need to get? Giving birth, in my experience, is for the most part not a male characteristic. Pre-exilic Israel conflated the attributes of Yahweh and El to the point where Asherah was seen as Yahweh's consort rather than El's - and then they got rid of Her altogether - but the root of the Trinity (a Father, Mother, and Child united into One God, the familial Godhead made possible through the At-one-ment of all Uncreated Intelligences) makes far more sense to me as a symbol of the divine nature of humanity and eventual heavenly rebirth.

There's been a lot of speculation about this, but the fact is that there must have been something which sparked the initial speculation in the first place. Brigham connected it with his Adam-God theory, and thought of Heavenly Mother as Eve. (In a way, she is - as a now-exalted woman, Eve can certainly be called one of the "God the Mothers" - though I personally take Eve as an archetypal figure) For instance, on page 286 of Volume 9 Journal of Discourses, Brigham hears that Joseph wouldn't have worshipped a God who didn't have a father, and believes he wouldn't have worshipped one without a mother either. I just disagree with Brigham that Eve is "the" Heavenly Mother. (And I heartily recommend Paulsen and Pulido's paper referenced above.)

The thing is, if my speculation is correct, then the Book of Mormon becomes an utterly unique Restoration of the Divine Family (given to a child in a Sacred Grove, no less - a child who would go on to restore the Hieros Gamos to the Temple). From a quick search, I count more mentions of the Holy Spirit of Wisdom in the Book of Mormon than any other book in the canon - for the very good reason that Lehi and company were worried that She would be wiped out from Israelite religion ... which is exactly what did happen, along with the idea that humans are literally theomorphic representations of the anthropomorphic Gods. (She's also in the Pearl of Great Price, with Adam receiving the Holy Spirit, and Pharaoh, a righteous man, earnestly imitating the gospel. See Nibley's Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri for exhaustive treatment.) (As well as 'The Significance of the Burning Bush' by N. Wyatt in Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 36, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1986), pp. 361-365 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1518419 in which the Burning Bush is seen as the Tree of Life.)

The Tree of Life - the Witness who bore the Light of the Teacher of Righteousness - was lost, but as the Book of Revelation says, She would one day be found. I think we LDS (and some later "feminist" scholars) are the ones who found Her.

Edited February 7, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[LeSellers]

From wiki:

" O, My Father" (originally "My Father in Heaven", also "Invocation or The Eternal Father and Mother" ) is a Latter-day Saint (LDS or Mormon) hymn written by Eliza R. Snow who felt inspired to write it after Joseph Smith, Jr, had taught her the principle of heavenly parents. The hymn is interesting in terms of Mormon theology in that it is one of the few direct references to a "Heavenly Mother" in materials published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

After discussing pre-mortal existence and a sense of belonging to "a more exalted sphere" in heaven, stanza three reasons that if there is an eternal Father there must also be an eternal Mother:

I had learned to call thee Father,

Through thy Spirit from on high,

But until the key of knowledge

Was restored, I knew not why.

In the heavens are parents single?

No, the thought makes reason stare!

Truth is reason, truth eternal

Tells me I've a mother there.

Snow wrote "O My Father" under the title "My Father in Heaven" in October 1845 in Nauvoo, Illinois. The Times and Seasons first published the words on 15 November 1845, more than a year after Joseph Smith, Jr. was killed. The poetry was later set to the music of another Christian hymn, "My Redeemer" by James McGranahan, and included in Latter-day Saint hymnals, including the current one. When a collection of Snow's poems were published in 1856, this work was placed first in the double-volume set and entitled "Invocation, or The Eternal Father and Mother".

I don't have more right now.

Lehi

Edited February 7, 2012 by LeSellers

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

Now that we have cleared that up- please address the actual points I made that show you are trying to cram LDS beliefs into an Evangelical framework thus misunderstanding and misrepresenting those beliefs.

To wit:

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is not LDS doctrine but direct quotes from the Prophets and Apostes of the LDS church are. You weighed the opinions of Elaine Cannon more heavily than the teachings of Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith and the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the 12.

Not true at all. I quoted Joseph Fielding Smith and Gordon B. Hinckley; I see you left their names out while you keep on complaining about my citation of "Elaine Cannon" (which is actually Elaine Cannon as edited by a who's who of LDS scholars, by the way). I also acknowledged that the doctrine was later affirmed as revelation. You keep ignoring this fact.

You wrote:

An idea in LDS doctrine does not have to be promulgated at the origins of or in the standard works or our religion to eventually become knowledge and doctrine of our church. (your evangelical assumptions color your opinion here quite clearly)

I never claimed otherwise, and I have already acknowledged that point more than once. Perhaps your anti-evangelical prejudices are blinding you from seeing clearly what I am saying.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

Thanks. Unfortunately, the wiki article gives no quotation or reference or citation to support its statement that Joseph Smith had taught Eliza the principle of heavenly parents. What it does tell us is that she wrote it sixteen months after Joseph died. This raises some question about the undocumented claim that she wrote it after hearing about heavenly parents from Joseph.

[KevinG]

You:

I acknowledged that Mormons view the belief in a Heavenly Mother as part of revealed doctrine. However, it was pronounced such long after it was first promulgated, and the first statement of this belief explicitly attributes the idea to reason, not to divine revelation.

Me:

An idea in LDS doctrine does not have to be promulgated at the origins of or in the standard works or our religion to eventually become knowledge and doctrine of our church. (your evangelical assumptions color your opinion here quite clearly)

You:

I never claimed otherwise, and I have already acknowledged that point more than once. Perhaps your anti-evangelical prejudices are blinding you from seeing clearly what I am saying.

Can you provide evidence of my supposed anti-evangelical prejudices? Perhaps you can serch my Evangelical Research Ministry website where I mischaracterize or take out of context Evangelical beliefs to find them? Or maybe my long list of essays here that argue Evangelicals don't know their own doctrines?

[KevinG]

P.S. I personally know and studied with many of those who's who of Mormon scholars- and several of them did fear people abusing their articles in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism in precisely the way you just did.

Quite simply Rob are we Latter-day Saints to base our beleifs on Elaine Cannons article or the writings of several Prophets and Apostles living and dead?

[Rob Bowman]

Jeremy,

Wow.

Apparently speculation and revelation can be friends.

I appreciate the comments and the links. I'm familiar with most of the articles you cited, though not quite all. For now let's just say I put things together rather differently than you do. I'm not sure that I can do a worthy response without getting into all sorts of issues that would take a lot to disentangle.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

I have run a line through the quotation you found so offensive that it distracted you from the rest of the post.

P.S. I personally know and studied with many of those who's who of Mormon scholars- and several of them did fear people abusing their articles in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism in precisely the way you just did.

Quite simply Rob are we Latter-day Saints to base our beleifs on Elaine Cannons article or the writings of several Prophets and Apostles living and dead?

[LeSellers]

Unfortunately, the wiki article gives no quotation or reference or citation to support its statement that Joseph Smith had taught Eliza the principle of heavenly parents.

You might look here. It sounds familiar.

What it does tell us is that she wrote it sixteen months after Joseph died. This raises some question about the undocumented claim that she wrote it after hearing about heavenly parents from Joseph.

Only if you're looking for reasons to reject the idea.

Lehi

[KevinG]

Jeremy,

Wow.

Apparently speculation and revelation can be friends.

I appreciate the comments and the links. I'm familiar with most of the articles you cited, though not quite all. For now let's just say I put things together rather differently than you do. I'm not sure that I can do a worthy response without getting into all sorts of issues that would take a lot to disentangle.

Speculation and revelation are friends. After all why is it God asks us to search, ponder and pray to find out His will and His truth? These are not wild speculations we're discussing they are inspired, researched, prayerful speculations which are part of our scholarship and petitions to God. While this experience is much different from your basic assumption that God has revealed all that was to be revealed in the Bible it is no less valid a method for searching out the will of God. If we are in error or our information is incomplete God will instruct us fully in His time.

This is precicely the issue identified as your own bias coloring your understanding of LDS belief - which you pass off as someone elses problem with snide remarks.

The issue isn't about you putting things together differently than LDS - it is you presenting such opinions as LDS beliefs or inconsistencies in LDS beliefs when it is actually your own misunderstandings you are publishing.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

I have run a line through the quotation you found so offensive that it distracted you from the rest of the post.

You err in your understanding again. - I was not offended or distracted by a single statement - I found a fundamental blindness to your understanding of LDS beliefs demonstrated quite clearly by said statement but also reflected in your thesis in general.

Does this redaction mean you agree that LDS doctrine and beliefs can, as apart of an open cannon, evolve as our understanding of God's eternal nature unfolds over time- and therefore our belief in a Heavenly Mother while not always explicit in our standard works but reaffirmed by Prophet after Prophet, is considered a part of our doctrines?

Edited February 7, 2012 by DaddyG

[wenglund]

Wade,

We would need to take the rest of the Book of Mormon doctrine into consideration to see which understanding of the doctrine of God best fits it as a whole. If the Book of Mormon presented God's status as "Father in heaven" in the context of teaching that he had procreated us in heaven before our earthly mortality, that would be one thing. But it doesn't.

And as a matter of fact, Book of Mormon references to God as "Father" often apply that title to Jesus Christ in reference to his status as the creator of all things. So the broadest possible context of Book of Mormon theology would need to be considered in a full-board discussion of this question.

That may be the conclusion one might reasonably draw from a hyper-literal, uninspired reading of the Book of Mormon.

Others, however, may reasonably interpret the designator "Father in Heaven" as strongly implying premortal parentage--particularly given other revelatory sources, not the least of which is: "...subjection unto the Father of spirits...", Heb. 12:9

So, for those of us who don't interpret the designator "first parents" in a hyper-literal way, and who may reasonably interpret the designator "Father in Heaven" as implying premortal parentage, then might the designator "Father in Heaven" reasonably inform and modify the scope of our interpretation of the designator "first parents"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

26 ¶ And God [plural noun] said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God [plural noun]created man [singular noun referring to singular creation] in his own image, in the image of God [plural noun] created he him [singular pronoun referring to plural creations]; male and female created he them.

Here’s a reference to our Heavenly Mother. It also shows that the Gods are of both the male and female sexes, since we, men and women, are in Their images.

In the heav’ns are parents single? No! The thought makes reason stare!

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Daddy,

You asked:

Does this redaction mean you agree that LDS doctrine and beliefs can, as apart of an open cannon, evolve as our understanding of God's eternal nature unfolds over time- and therefore our belief in a Heavenly Mother while not always explicit in our standard works but reaffirmed by Prophet after Prophet, is considered a part of our doctrines?

I've already answered this question. Sorry, DaddyG, but you're just not listening to me.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

That may be the conclusion one might reasonably draw from a hyper-literal, uninspired reading of the Book of Mormon.

Sorry, but I'm not going to bother trying to continue discussions with someone who dismisses my arguments as "hyper-literal" and "uninspired" instead of actually engaging the arguments.

You regularly evade responding by making excuses which clog up threads. If you want to remain on this board you will have to start responding even when it isn't convenient. Consider that a warning.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

How about that. There's no reference to Heavenly Mother in the Book of Mormon, but you found one in the Bible, in Genesis 1:26, that eluded Jews and Christians for thousands of years.

You've got an interesting exegesis of Genesis 1:26 there. Let me point out just one simple fact. The Hebrew word elohim is used there as a singular noun. We know this because the verb for "said" is a singular verb, not a plural one. This is why, for example, the Septuagint translated elohim here as theos, "God," not theoi, "Gods."

[LeSellers]

There's no reference to Heavenly Mother in the Book of Mormon, but you found one in the Bible, in Genesis 1:26, that eluded Jews and Christians for thousands of years.

You've got an interesting exegesis of Genesis 1:26 there. Let me point out just one simple fact. The Hebrew word elohim is used there as a singular noun. We know this because the verb for "said" is a singular verb, not a plural one. This is why, for example, the Septuagint translated elohim here as theos, "God," not theoi, "Gods."

If you seek not, you are unlikely to find.

The fact that eloheim is plural, irrespective of the number of the verb, has some significance, whether you (or we) understand it or not. So, in the view of other Christians, why did Moses, under the inspiration of God, Himself, use the name/title "Gods"?

I believe it is because of a gross misunderstanding and hyperpharisaical definition of the concept of "monotheism". The only reason for monotheism's being so emphasized in the Old Testament is the prevalence of paganism/pantheism. A prime example of this hyperpharisaicalism is the "Shema": it does not say what most adherents believe it does. This overplaying of the rhetoric appears to be a manifestation of the same thing we Saints often express in regards to Plural Marriage: we overcompensate by displaying horror at the thought of its being re-established by the Lord. Just the same, many Jews and Christians express needless horror at the thought of the Gods' being plural; so much so that Constantine invented (or imposed) homoousia on the Council at Nicae to placate the hypermonotheists there.

As for your not-so-subtle implication that I don't know that eloheim takes a singular verb in this passage, I point you back to my "exegesis" (not a term I'd have used there on my own): I know very well what the numbers of the grammatical elements are, thankyouverymuch.

Finally, so what if there is no reference to our Heavenly Mother in the Book of Mormon? It was never meant to be, nor does it advertize itself as being, a complete repository of all things pertaining to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, even though it does contain the fulness of the Gospel. (The Gospel is the answer to the question in Job 14:14a: "If a man die, shall he live again?" Paul answers the same question in the first few verses of 1 Cor 15. Jesus Christ and His Atonement are the theme of the Book of Mormon, from "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents ..." through "... to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen." That's why the subtitle is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ".

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

The fact that eloheim is plural, irrespective of the number of the verb, has some significance, whether you (or we) understand it or not. So, in the view of other Christians, why did Moses, under the inspiration of God, Himself, use the name/title "Gods"?

He didn't. Elohim is not "Gods"; these are two different languages that use their respective grammatical forms in different ways. In some cases elohim functioned as a numerical plural, but in the vast majority of instances in the OT it did not.

There are many Hebrew nouns in which the "plural" is often not a numerical plural. For example, the Hebrew OT uses a "plural" form for heaven, right there in Genesis 1:1, shamayim; the OT never uses a "singular" form of this noun. The words chayim ("life") and panim ("face") are morophologically plural but usually not numerically plural.

You wrote:

I believe it is because of a gross misunderstanding and hyperpharisaical definition of the concept of "monotheism".

Is name-calling an acceptable form of argument here?

You wrote:

Just the same, many Jews and Christians express needless horror at the thought of the Gods' being plural; so much so that Constantine invented (or imposed) homoousia on the Council at Nicae to placate the hypermonotheists there.

He did neither. The term was already in circulation and he supported its use but did not impose it. But I am glad you recognize that Christians were already opposed to polytheism before Constantine or Nicea.

You wrote:

As for your not-so-subtle implication that I don't know that eloheim takes a singular verb in this passage, I point you back to my "exegesis" (not a term I'd have used there on my own): I know very well what the numbers of the grammatical elements are, thankyouverymuch.

You may have already known it, but you still have not accounted for it.

Finally, so what if there is no reference to our Heavenly Mother in the Book of Mormon? It was never meant to be, nor does it advertize itself as being, a complete repository of all things pertaining to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, even though it does contain the fulness of the Gospel. (The Gospel is the answer to the question in Job 14:14a: "If a man die, shall he live again?" Paul answers the same question in the first few verses of 1 Cor 15. Jesus Christ and His Atonement are the theme of the Book of Mormon, from "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents ..." through "... to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen." That's why the subtitle is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ".

if that's the fullness of the gospel, then evangelicals have the fullness of the gospel, because we accept Paul's teaching in those verses in 1 Corinthians 15. We believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as our hope of salvation and eternal life. So apparently, we don't need the LDS Church or its additional scriptures, because we've already got the fullness of the gospel.

[wenglund]

Wade,

Sorry, but I'm not going to bother trying to continue discussions with someone who dismisses my arguments as "hyper-literal" and "uninspired" instead of actually engaging the arguments.

It is not a dismissal, just recognition of a reasonable difference in interpretation. If you aren't capable of handling such reasonable differences then it is understandable that you wouldn't wish to continue the pretense of a discussion. Suite yourself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 7, 2012 by wenglund

[Vance]

How about that. There's no reference to Heavenly Mother in the Book of Mormon, but you found one in the Bible, in Genesis 1:26, that eluded Jews and Christians for thousands of years.

Yeah, the Great Apostasy does suck doesn't it.

[Vance]

Let me point out just one simple fact. The Hebrew word elohim is used there as a singular noun. We know this because the verb for "said" is a singular verb, not a plural one. This is why, for example, the Septuagint translated elohim here as theos, "God," not theoi, "Gods."

So, then how does that apply to Josh 22:22?

[LeSellers]

Elohim is not "Gods"; these are two different languages that use their respective grammatical forms in different ways. In some cases elohim functioned as a numerical plural, but in the vast majority of instances in the OT it did not.

First you say it's singular, then you say it's plural. How do we know?

Then, too, it seems you have wholly forgotten the fact that God created both men and women in His image. I know of no fathers who are female. Men and women are not the same, et vive la différence!" A woman is not in the image of a male God, so there must be a female God up there, too.

And now, let's ask an obvious question, however uncomfortable it may be to you: Why do you call Him "Father"?

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

So, then how does that apply to Josh 22:22?

I'll bite. What's your point? I don't see anything in that verse where the point at hand comes up.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

First you say it's singular, then you say it's plural. How do we know?

I have no patience today for having my position twisted. I did no such thing. I have made the same point all along.

Then, too, it seems you have wholly forgotten the fact that God created both men and women in His image. I know of no fathers who are female. Men and women are not the same, et vive la différence!" A woman is not in the image of a male God, so there must be a female God up there, too.

This statement assumes that "image of God" means that the human being physically looks like the God. That is very much in dispute here. But I heartily echo your vive la différence!

And now, let's ask an obvious question, however uncomfortable it may be to you: Why do you call Him "Father"?

Here are the reasons why we evangelicals do so.

1. The Bible does it.

2. Jesus set us an example of doing it.

3. The redeemed relationship we have with God through Christ is analogous to the relationship between a child and a parent.

And now, a question for you, however uncomfortable it might be to you:

Why does the Book of Mormon call Jesus Christ "the Father of heaven and earth" (Mosiah 3:8; 15:4; Alma 11:39; Helaman 14:12; 16:18)?

[wenglund]

Symbolism is often used in the scriptures, particularly of ancient Eastern origin, to hide mysteries in plain sight. This is so that those with eyes to see, can see, and those who don't, won't. It is for this reason that Jesus often spoke in parables (see Mt. 13:10-17)

One of the ways we may be blind to the mysteries hidden in plain sight, aside from not being adequately schooled in the learning of the Jews (2 Nephi 25:5), is for us to, without humility and guidance of the Holy Spirit, read with overly literalistic and fundamentalistic eyes.

A perfect example of this is found in Jn. 6:48-66, where Jesus declared himself to be the bread of life, and said that "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Many of the disciples evidently interpreted this declaration literally, and in their Spirit-deminished pride were offended, and even after the meaning was explained to them, they "walked no more" with Christ.

Perhaps, to varying degrees, this occurs in modern times.

There is good reason why I posed the question: "What is the meaning of the tree?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 7, 2012 by wenglund