Don Bradley'S Fair Presentation: What Are The Ashera And Nehushtan Parallels?

[USU78]

Link to Bradley's transcript: http://www.fairlds.o...lost-116-pages

Bradley proposes parallels between the ancestral relics possessed by the Nephite Kings and the items kept in the Debir in Solomon's Temple. He also proposes that those Nephite Royal Relics were kept in the Temple in Nephi, and later taken and placed in the Temple in Zarahemla by Mosiah I.

Those parallels were:

Tablets of the Decalogue -> the Brass [bronze] Plates

Aaron's Rod & the Pot of Manna -> The Liahona

The Ephod with the Breastplate and Urim/Thummim -> The Breastplate and Interpreters

Goliath's Sword -> Laban's Sword

He does not mention two ritual objects kept in Solomon's Temple, but later removed and destroyed during the Josiahan Reformation: The Ashera and the Nehushtan, the sacred "Tree" of Yahweh's consort and the Brazen Serpent on a pole constructed by Moses to heal the people of snakebite.

I would like to propose parallels here as well:

As to the Ashera, I will speculate that the Nephi/Zarahemla Temples both had within them representations of the Sacred Tree. I think I am on defensible ground here: http://maxwellinstit...26&num=5&id=468, even though there is no obvious scriptural reference, other than Lehi's Dream, which is repeated twice in extant Nephite scripture . . . and was probably also listed in the now lost Book of Lehi. Did those two temples contain artistic representations of Lehi's Dream or of the World Tree? We can never know for certain, but it is reasonable to me that they would.

As for the Nehushtan, which means "the brazen/bronze thing," I propose the following: The Brass [bronze] Plates are made of the same substance and perform the same function. The Israelites were to "look and live," look at the Nehushtan and be healed. Alma 33:19, 37:46-47. Alma draws the parallel between the Brass Plates and the Nehushtan, between the Savior whose favor is gained by looking to His Holy Symbol and the scriptures which testify of Him.

Whaddya think?

Edited September 20, 2012 by USU78

[volgadon]

As for the Nehushtan, which means "the brazen/bronze thing," I propose the following: The Brass [bronze] Plates are made of the same substance and perform the same function. The Israelites were to "look and live," look at the Nehushtan and be healed. Alma 33:19, 37:46-47. Alma draws the parallel between the Brass Plates and the Nehushtan, between the Savior whose favor is gained by looking to His Holy Symbol and the scriptures which testify of Him.

Whaddya think?

I think you are on to something. Considering the association of both symbols with law, I think it is logical to confalte the Law with the Nehushtan.

[Bob Crockett]

Of course, the Asherah was a complete abomination to God.

[volgadon]

Of course, the Asherah was a complete abomination to God.

Depends on what is meant by Asherah.

[Bob Crockett]

Depends on what is meant by Asherah.

The Asherah in the opening post.

I see Mormon intellectuals' efforts to latch on to atheist Hebrew feminist scholasticism much the same way I see the gay community's efforts to read out of the Old Testament the holding that homosexuality is an abomination.

I know I've beat this drum before and haven't had any sympathy here. But, in essence, this theory jettisons the reforms of Josiah which Mormon General Authorities have cited with approval in General Conference addresses for decades. The Bible becomes one of shifting sands, and I know the Brethren grab hold of the Bible a little better than that.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[volgadon]

The Asherah in the opening post.

I see Mormon intellectuals' efforts to latch on to atheist Hebrew feminist scholasticism much the same way I see the gay community's efforts to read out of the Old Testament the holding that homosexuality is an abomination.

Again, it depends on which asherah you are talking about. Your buzzwords aside, the asherah in the temple was most probably a cultic object- a tree- symbolising YHWH's ability to bless his followers.

[Bob Crockett]

Again, it depends on which asherah you are talking about. Your buzzwords aside, the asherah in the temple was most probably a cultic object- a tree- symbolising YHWH's ability to bless his followers.

Hey, I like to dispose of an opponent's posts by calling them "buzzwords." I'm guilty. But the tree in the temple was an abomination, or so says the Bible and conservative Hebrew scholars. If you're a feminist and an atheist, the tree was a triumph to humanity. Is it so hard to see that Dever has his critics, the very sort of folks Mormon scholars should be fellowshipping with instead?

Edited September 21, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[volgadon]

Hey, I like to dispose of an opponent's posts by calling them "buzzwords." I'm guilty. But the tree in the temple was an abomination, or so says the Bible and conservative Hebrew scholars. If you're a feminist and an atheist, the tree was a triumph to humanity. Is it so hard to see that Dever has his critics, the very sort of folks Mormon scholars should be fellowshipping with instead?

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I'm not a Dever fan. I don't think I even referenced him here. These are the basic lines of what we can extract from the Bible. There were cultic objects in the temple, and at some point they began to take on unacceptablew connotations for some. This was followed by a reform.

[USU78]

I think you are on to something. Considering the association of both symbols with law, I think it is logical to confalte the Law with the Nehushtan.

And, speaking of conflation, the Alma 37 citation above had more to do with the Liahona and its parallel function with the Nehushtan, rather than the Torah/Brass Plates. Yet the conflation is definitely there, as you mention: Torah and Nehushtan/Christ and Nehushtan/Liahona and Nehushtan/Liahona and Christ: all conflated and cross-referenced by Alma for Helaman's benefit. And ours.

[USU78]

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I'm not a Dever fan. I don't think I even referenced him here. These are the basic lines of what we can extract from the Bible. There were cultic objects in the temple, and at some point they began to take on unacceptablew connotations for some. This was followed by a reform.

This is a bit of a threadjack, yet not an unimportant topic. I don't see why we should ignore references [albeit oblique] to the Asherah in the BoM, just like we'd be silly to ignore the express references to the Nehushtan. Both were gonzo during the Reform. Yet both are referenced in a post-Reform world of 1 Nephi and thereafter in the new Promised Land. And both make reference to the miracle that is Christ: The Asherah as the tree that is the virgin that bears the Messiah, as well as the tree that bears the fruit that is the fullest expression of G-d's love . . . the Nehushtan as the law we must follow, that to which we must look to be saved, that whose directions we must follow, and He Who is the Way, the Truth and the Light.

[Bob Crockett]

This is a bit of a threadjack, yet not an unimportant topic. I don't see why we should ignore references [albeit oblique] to the Asherah in the BoM, just like we'd be silly to ignore the express references to the Nehushtan.

There are no such references in the Book of Mormon. To infer such references, one must make assumptions based upon a construct which Dever and his ilk have structured beginning around the 1970s or so.

Both were gonzo during the Reform.

A reform approved by God and cited with approval in many General Conference talks as an example of holding fast to the Word of God.

Yet both are referenced in a post-Reform world of 1 Nephi and thereafter in the new Promised Land.

No. Not so. I can read my Book of Mormon.

And both make reference to the miracle that is Christ: The Asherah as the tree that is the virgin that bears the Messiah, as well as the tree that bears the fruit that is the fullest expression of G-d's love . . . the Nehushtan as the law we must follow, that to which we must look to be saved, that whose directions we must follow, and He Who is the Way, the Truth and the Light.

Not even remotely true. Not from the Bible. Not from the Book of Mormon. Not from anything any General Authority has ever said. But, that construct can be made if you accept the faulty propositions that: (1) the Bible is not the Word of God, (2) that the true religion of Israel should be measured from the proletariat's (and matriarchal) idols and images they maintained in their households and cultic centers, rather than from the priest-dominated and bourgeois (and patriarchal) authority of the priests, and (3) that the Bible we have is the story written by the false victors.

The only reason Mormon intellectuals fall victim to this stuff is that they want to find something that might have evidence for a Mother in Heaven. I hate to break it to you, but you are not likely to find truth by looking into hell.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[USU78]

There are no such references in the Book of Mormon. To infer such references, one must make assumptions based upon a construct which Dever and his ilk have structured beginning around the 1970s or so.

A reform approved by God and cited with approval in many General Conference talks as an example of holding fast to the Word of God.

No. Not so. I can read my Book of Mormon.

Not even remotely true. Not from the Bible. Not from the Book of Mormon. Not from anything any General Authority has ever said. But, that construct can be made if you accept the faulty propositions that: (1) the Bible is not the Word of God, (2) that the true religion of Israel should be measured from the proletariat's (and matriarchal) idols and images they maintained in their households and cultic centers, rather than from the priest-dominated and bourgeois (and patriarchal) authority of the priests, and (3) that the Bible we have is the story written by the false victors.

The only reason Mormon intellectuals fall victim to this stuff is that they want to find something that might have evidence for a Mother in Heaven. I hate to break it to you, but you are not likely to find truth by looking into hell.

I guess we'll just have to excise that inconvenient stuff in Alma and in 1 Nephi then. Pity. I really like the poetry of both. Guess I'll have to reacquire my pedanticism . . .

8 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the ^atree which my father had seen; and the ^bbeauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the ^cwhiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

9 And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is ^aprecious above all.

10 And he said unto me: What desirest thou?

11 And I said unto him: To know the ^ainterpretation thereof—for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the ^bform of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 And he said unto me: Behold, the ^avirgin whom thou seest is the ^bmother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

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

20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearin[g a ^achild in her arms.

21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the ^aLamb of God, yea, even the ^bSon of the Eternal ^cFather! Knowest thou the meaning of the ^dtree which thy father saw?

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

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

[Bob Crockett]

I just don't think Candace's eunuch had to be an atheistic Hebraist to respond to Phillip's message, nor do the Brethren require us to believe this nonsense. More on this later when I get a chance.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[USU78]

I just don't think Candace's eunuch had to be an atheistic Hebraist to respond to Phillip's message, nor do the Brethren require us to believe this nonsense. More on this later when I get a chance.

More to the point of the thread . . . do you likewise reject the notion of the sacred relics belonging to the Nephite Kings and/or the priestly custodians of the Plates being associated with their temple . . . and that they were similar in form and function to those belonging to the Davidic Kings and the Jerusalem Temple?

[Bob Crockett]

More to the point of the thread . . . do you likewise reject the notion of the sacred relics belonging to the Nephite Kings and/or the priestly custodians of the Plates being associated with their temple . . . and that they were similar in form and function to those belonging to the Davidic Kings and the Jerusalem Temple?

Not really. I think it an undiscussed secret that the Latter-day Saint faith is based, in part, upon the veneration of our version of relics. Otherwise, there would have been no particular purpose for the Gold Plates, the Sword of Laban and so forth. So I don't object to the concept that the Ark had its relics. But, the BoM says nothing about relics in the Nephite temple, so in my view the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[USU78]

Not really. I think it an undiscussed secret that the Latter-day Saint faith is based, in part, upon the veneration of our version of relics. Otherwise, there would have been no particular purpose for the Gold Plates, the Sword of Laban and so forth. So I don't object to the concept that the Ark had its relics. But, the BoM says nothing about relics in the Nephite temple, so in my view the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Well . . . the stuff was kept somewhere . . .

[Bob Crockett]

I'm not saying the explanation isn't reasonable.

But, as with the LGT, the veneration of Asherah and other speculations, I come from a very literalistic school of Latter-day Saints. If it isn't said over the pulpit in General Conference or published in the Ensign, it has no liturgical significance. Often we confuse secular intellectualism with spiritual truths, and the two are not the same. Often we try and explain gaps or problems in our faith with secular nonsense, when that only makes matters worse when the arm of the flesh becomes the tail of a lizard.

[USU78]

I'm not saying the explanation isn't reasonable.

But, as with the LGT, the veneration of Asherah and other speculations, I come from a very literalistic school of Latter-day Saints. If it isn't said over the pulpit in General Conference or published in the Ensign, it has no liturgical significance. Often we confuse secular intellectualism with spiritual truths, and the two are not the same. Often we try and explain gaps or problems in our faith with secular nonsense, when that only makes matters worse when the arm of the flesh becomes the tail of a lizard.

I came from a school where there were passionate arguments in High Priest groups on a whole lot of stuff, with people drawing from the DHC, General Conference Reports, Duane Crowther's stuff, and a whole lot more. There was no lack of often absurd arguments and no dearth of silly speculations . . . and that which in its highly literalist way led to silliness was, frankly, of far less value than what I read hereabouts, in FARMS, and whatnot. I am delighted by new insights. I crave deeper understanding. My childhood literalism, with all its passion, was fine, but it was time to put such things aside.

Every new insight helps me believe more deeply that the people were real people. Their lives real lives. Their times real times. Their places real places.

I, therefore, disagree. Literalism bought us indefensible dual continental extent of Lehite polity: yet that is an absurd result. Just as it is absurd to take Joshua literally when he says he killed every man of a city in Chapter 7 . . . then talks about punitive actions against the same city in Chapter 8.

[rameumptom]

Hey, I like to dispose of an opponent's posts by calling them "buzzwords." I'm guilty. But the tree in the temple was an abomination, or so says the Bible and conservative Hebrew scholars. If you're a feminist and an atheist, the tree was a triumph to humanity. Is it so hard to see that Dever has his critics, the very sort of folks Mormon scholars should be fellowshipping with instead?

Bob, that's baloney. There are many believing scholars that recognize the tree/Asherah in the pre-Deuteronomist/Josian reforms as accepted of God. Take Margaret Barker, for instance. This has been discussed in BAR many times with believers. I do not think it requires a person to be feminist or atheist to believe it. That the Josian reforms can be viewed both as good or bad, depending on whom you ask, is very clear. But it is also true with the Dead Sea Scrolls, who claimed they had the authority and right way of God, but were kicked out of power by the Wicked Priest. If we claim one side were feminists, does that suddenly answer who was right? I don't think so.

That you personally have a bone with this stuff, I'm not surprised. But there is more than Dever making statements in regards to this.

[USU78]

That the Josian reforms can be viewed both as good or bad, depending on whom you ask, is very clear.

In this regard:

2 Kings 23:29 In his days Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him.

Perhaps the most telling commentary on the reforms.

[Bob Crockett]

Bob, that's baloney. There are many believing scholars that recognize the tree/Asherah in the pre-Deuteronomist/Josian reforms as accepted of God. Take Margaret Barker, for instance.

That kind of resort to authority isn't all that persuasive, particularly regarding a cite to Barker. I can read for myself the many general conference addresses which support the reforms of Josiah, which ripped the tree out of the temple.

As the Church's Bible Dictionary states regarding Josiah's reform: "While still young, he made, under the guidance of Hilkiah, a thorough religious reformation, which extended to the northern tribes. He restored the temple, destroyed idolatrous images and the high places, put down the idolatrous priests, and celebrated a great Passover (2 Kgs. 23:21–23). During this reformation a book of the law was found by Hilkiah (2 Kgs. 22:8 f.; 2 Chr. 34:15 f.). It made at once a great impression, and led to the centralizing of all sacrificial worship at Jerusalem and the abolition of local idolatrous sanctuaries or high places."

As the Church's institute manual says, at page 37: "Turned his heart continually to the Lord as he grew. Purged the land of idolatrous practices and sanctuaries. Renovated and restored the temple. Discovered sacred records in the temple during its renovation. Established religious reform and administered by covenant to the people."

Page 214: "Josiah was one of the best of all the kings of Judah since the time of David. . . . Inspired by the words of the book of the law, Josiah ordered the idols and the groves among the Israelites to be destroyed. The grove mentioned in verse 6 was a shrine dedicated to the idol Asherah, the nature goddess or the goddess of the moon. The 'hangings' mentioned in verse 7 were coverings or curtains that enclosed the booths where the impure rituals were performed.

Page 215: "Josiah scattered the ashes and powder of the idols and the bones of men on the sacred places of the idolaters to defile them and make them abominable to the idolaters so that they would not want to use them anymore."

Page 217: "The cancer of idolatry was too deep in the hearts of the people for the surgery undertaken by Josiah to have any great effect."

Page 238: "The boldness of Jeremiah’s statement can be realized only when one recalls the importance given to the temple by the reforms of Josiah in 621 B.C. Josiah had made it the sole place of sacrificial worship of Jehovah for all Jews in an attempt to stamp out idol worship."

This has been discussed in BAR many times with believers. I do not think it requires a person to be feminist or atheist to believe it. That the Josian reforms can be viewed both as good or bad, depending on whom you ask, is very clear. But it is also true with the Dead Sea Scrolls, who claimed they had the authority and right way of God, but were kicked out of power by the Wicked Priest. If we claim one side were feminists, does that suddenly answer who was right? I don't think so.

That the Dead Sea Scrolls may describe Josiah's priest as the Wicked Priest is not persuasive. The rather modern adoration of Asherah is, indeed, founded in absurdly overt secular feminist scholasticism. Have you read "Does God Have a Wife?" or any of Dever's prior academic papers on the subject? Whereas I don't have a fundamental problem with feminist scholars, I can read for myself how they denigrate on an assumed basis the patriarchy in Israel as being evil (in a secular sort of way.) I am frankly astounded that so many good Latter-day Saint scholars buy this stuff, and I very concerned especially with Kevin Barney's Dialogue article on the subject. I tend to have an a priori distrust of papers in Dialogue masquerading as academic pieces, because the reviewers would not likely be qualified in Semitic history (or any other specialized history such as that), nor do I regard Barney as a qualified expert in the area.

I also disagree with Dr. Peterson's article on the subject, and I highly doubt it was subject to Semitic historical peer review, because I don't there are qualified scholars at BYU in that subject area other than Dr. Peterson. I might suggest that one well-read in the subject matter would object to an over-reliance upon Dever's theories. I don't have a particular objection to Dr. Peterson's speculations in the area. They are interesting. But I do object to being the target of personal attacks merely because I advocate a point of view that would make Asherah veneration anathema. In other words, it seems that many here don't want to tolerate faithful points of view contrary to what passes for conventional wisdom around here.

That you personally have a bone with this stuff, I'm not surprised.

Statements like this certainly give me pause, because they are directed to me as a person, rather than as to the message that I offer. I'm rather curious as to why you would say this sort of thing? Isn't it quite obvious that my point of view is founded upon the position stated in Church manuals and general conference addresses, and isn't if further obvious that I use those references as a faithful member rather than as an unfaithful tormentor?

I would like you to at least a question. Is there anything on the Church's website [general conference addresses, instructional manuals, magazines, Bible dictionary, etc.] that might buy into the notion that Josiah's priest was, indeed, the "Wicked Priest" and that the reforms adversely affected true religion?

Edited September 24, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[rameumptom]

General Conference talks have nothing to do with understanding ancient Bible history. General Authorities mostly focus on orthopraxy, and very little on orthodoxy or theological issues. That the tradition of Josiah has in traditional terms suggested a good king, does not mean an apostle will have a revelation stating otherwise. Don't forget, also in the Josian reforms, they got rid of Aaron's budding rod and a variety of other items that Moses considered sacred enough to place in the temple. Are we to say that the brazen serpent of Moses suddenly was a wicked thing that deserved to be cleansed from the temple?

That you are the expert on who qualifies as a scholar (Barker - no, Dever - yes, but he's an atheist fringe person so doesn't count), is simply your personal view. That you toss Daniel Peterson out, simply because you were not allowed to peer review his article on Nephi's Asherah, kind of puts you above all the rest, doesn't it?

Your statements aren't founded in church statements regarding historical or archaeological issues of the Josian times, but just the accepted tradition that we find in our Bible. Don't forget, you can also find in many earlier talks why polygamy was an eternal principle that all would have to live in order to be exalted, or that the blacks have the curse of Cain. Just because it is a traditional teaching, does not mean the GAs based their talks on specific revelation in regards to something they believe, or have been taught.

As for the church manuals, they do not deal with issues such as the Documentary Hypothesis or whether there was an ancient battle between priests of Aaron and Moses over control of the Tabernacle/Temple, as well as the writing. We believe the Bible to be true as far as it is translated correctly. Given that, we assume many things in regards to its teachings, mainly because GAs and CES are usually not theologians. Nor is that their focus in teaching. Their responsibility is to teach faith in Christ and orthopraxy.

Of course, if you want to state that the earth is only 6000 years old, because Pres Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R McConkie actively taught that evolution is a heresy, then you are free to believe it. But the reality is, their mission was to testify of Christ and obedience. Neither established ever having received a full blown revelation in regards to this, nor should they, except that it become church doctrine. Again, GAs are not expected to be science experts, but teachers of doctrine.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't claim to be an expert. I never have claimed to be an expert. I am a lay person who has read the scholarly literature and who has compared it to General Authority statements and Church manual statements. I wonder how you could think that I have wanted to be a peer reviewer of Dr. Peterson's article? I am not an expert in Semitic history. But, do you think I am unqualified to point to the written statements in Church manuals and General Conference which seem to be opposed to this theory you love?

I know that you might think I am trying to back you into a corner with my questions, but I'm just trying to point out to you that the veneration of Asherah is completely contrary to statements of the Brethren, the Bible Dictionary and many other sources I cite.

And, it does simply no good for you to cite me to irrelevant subject matter, such as the Curse of Cain. Under that particular rationale, I am permitted to jettison anything any Church authority has ever said on any subject just because you or one might disagree what some of them have said about the Curse of Cain.

Your reference to the brazen serpent and its removal might suggest that you might not be read in the Christian and Jewish apologia on that subject over the years, and that is that the children of Israel had begun to venerate it as an idol, and thus the Lord had it removed.

Rather, we should instead focus upon the particular issue at hand. Was the veneration of Asherah part of the true Israelite religion? Well, my Bible and all church publications to have addressed the issue says that she was an abomination, an idol, and contrary to the true worship of Yahweh.

I know I'm guilty of asking you questions to pin you down, but I'm curious as to whether you think the Biblical text has any value at all if you and other LDS scholars are wont to ignore it in favor of the most recent faddish theory from atheists? I even see such thinking creep into the way the Book of Mormon is phrased, and I certainly reject such thinking.

I understand that this is a very popular recent topic here and amongst the MI intelligentsia. It is an interesting topic, to be sure. What basis have you for saying that you are not surprised that I have a bone with this stuff? What is it that you know about me personally that would cause you to think that?

Edited September 24, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[USU78]

Was the veneration of Asherah part of the true Israelite religion?

If you think that's what the point of the OP was, you're mistaken. "[T]rue Israelite religion" is not something we can easily get our hands around. We need to be talking about when, where and who before we can even venture a guess. If we're talking about the conversant descendents of folks from the Northern Kingdom who had emigrated to Judah/Benjamin, but who were participants in the post-reform Temple ritual as anticipatory of the Messiah to come . . . then we're talking a decidedly minority of Judahites.

We don't even know what the Lehite group even thought about Jeremiah's views . . . and his views on Josiah are decidedly mixed. That the priestly authors of the Kings and Chronicles books thought he was great is clear. Jeremiah is less so. What might Lehi's views of the lost Nehushtan and Asherah have been? We don't know. We can only speculate.

I myself think it likely that people of a Northern persuasion would have been just fine with the Asherah and Nehushtan, since they came from a place and time when the JHWH Bull was venerated in not one but two places in Israel. According to Kings and Chronicles, even the best of the Northern Kings from their perspective kept the JHWH Bull holy sites in operation.

Now . . . under these circumstances, I frankly don't much care about whether it was a good idea or not to have the Asherah symbology and the functional equivalent of the Nehushtan with its Jesus/Torah connections in the Nephite Temples . . . I'm asking whether, if any of the stuff in the Nephite Temple, Liahona, Brass Plates, Sword of Laban, is there . . . should we expect other parallels to the pre-Josiahan Reform cult objects to be represented?

I appreciate your arguments, Bob, and your discomfort. I'm asking something else, however.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm asking whether, if any of the stuff in the Nephite Temple, Liahona, Brass Plates, Sword of Laban, is there . . . should we expect other parallels to the pre-Josiahan Reform cult objects to be represented?

I appreciate your arguments, Bob, and your discomfort. I'm asking something else, however.

Well, you linked your argument to what appeared to be the theory that Asherah was an appropriate symbol for the pre-Reform temple, and it that is the case, you know my opinions about that. If you didn't say that, well then, never mind.