Theologian Announces That God Has A Wife

[BCSpace]

Oh yes, Christ fulfilled every commandment, from Baptism up through Celestial Marriage, because God had commanded them.  He was married, he was a polygamist, and he mulitplied and replenished the earth.  I don't think it's speculation at all.

 

Are you saying there is explicit doctrine (published by the Church)?  I would agree that what you said above is official doctrine, but only implicitly.

[Calm]

And I would question whether or not he fulfilled all commandments given to all God's people throughout time** so I see no requirement for him to be involved in plural marriage, though it is possible.

** For example, he did not live by the commandment of the Word of Wisdom.

[JLHPROF]

Are you saying there is explicit doctrine (published by the Church)?  I would agree that what you said above is official doctrine, but only implicitly.

 

Well, if an apostle explicitly teaches something in General Conference and it is published in a publication sanctioned and recommended (although not published directly) by the First Presidency, does that count as official? If so, they I would say this was official back in the 1800s, whether it is nor not today.

[JLHPROF]

And I would question whether or not he fulfilled all commandments given to all God's people throughout time** so I see no requirement for him to be involved in plural marriage, though it is possible.

** For example, he did not live by the commandment of the Word of Wisdom.

 

Not all commandments ever given to God's people, but certainly all the laws and ordinances necessary for man on earth to achieve exaltation.  And at least in my opinion and studies, every head of a dispensation lived Plural Marriage.

I doubt Christ followed every aspect of the Law of Moses (in fact, we know he didn't).  But the ordinances that are necessary for exaltation at the time of each restoration haven't changed from dispensation to dispensation.  And I believe Christ as head of the 6th dispensation lived them all.

 

If we accept that Consecration is a higher law than tithing, or that Plural Marriage when  authorized is a higher law, then it would make no sense that there are people who have lived higher laws than our Saviour.  They would be worthy of higher blessings, and that isn't possible.

[Calm]

"And at least in my opinion and studies, every head of a dispensation lived Plural Marriage."

We have less evidence that each one participated then we have that they didn't given what has been said about the various wives, I think it is a huge leap myself.

Adam-Eve, Enoch..any wife named?, Noah-one wife identified, Jesus-no wife known, Moses-one wife for sure, maybe two

Edited January 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

"And at least in my opinion and studies, every head of a dispensation lived Plural Marriage."

We have less evidence that each one participated then we do, I think it is a huge leap myself.

 

Church teachings on whether dispensation heads were polygamists:

Heads of dispensations

1. Adam - JD 1:50 and Jewish mythology teach that Adam was a polygamist

2. Enoch - No real record of his life or family one way or another

3. Noah - The only one where a single wife was mentioned instead of many...possibly

4. Abraham - Bible teaches he was a polygamist

5. Moses - D&C 132:1 and the Bible teaches he had two wives, whether they were simultaneous isn't stated.

6. Christ - Most general authorities including BY, HCK, Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, Jedediah Grant, the Millenial Star, and on and on...

7. Joseph Smith - Historical Records

 

Yeah, I believe they all were polygamists and as heads of their dispensations lived every one of the eternal laws and ordinances.  Including the Savior.

[BCSpace]

Are you saying there is explicit doctrine (published by the Church)?  I would agree that what you said above is official doctrine, but only implicitly.

 

 

Well, if an apostle explicitly teaches something in General Conference and it is published in a publication sanctioned and recommended (although not published directly) by the First Presidency, does that count as official? If so, they I would say this was official back in the 1800s, whether it is nor not today.

 

 

JoD doesn't count.  Oh well.  Implicit is good enough as all one does is follow the doctrine to it's logical conclusion.

[Robert F. Smith]

Are you saying there is explicit doctrine (published by the Church)?  I would agree that what you said above is official doctrine, but only implicitly.

Implicit official doctrine?  Is that a new category?

[Stone holm]

The logical conclusion of Christ being an example in all things would be that He married. It would not necessarily mean that He was a polygamist since that is not a requirement for exaltation. However, since it is clear that He had a very close association with Mary and Martha, and given the description of a fairly intimate contact with Mary ... I believe it to bea very reasonable assumption that He was married to her and her sister. Mary Magdalene is also a possibility, although some GAs have clung to the now questioned idea she was a harlot and unfit. That notion, however, appears to be under attack and arguments are being made that it was a story made to discredit her as she was believed to be a significant teacher in the primitive Church

[Tacenda]

Church teachings on whether dispensation heads were polygamists:

Heads of dispensations

1. Adam - JD 1:50 and Jewish mythology teach that Adam was a polygamist

2. Enoch - No real record of his life or family one way or another

3. Noah - The only one where a single wife was mentioned instead of many...possibly

4. Abraham - Bible teaches he was a polygamist

5. Moses - D&C 132:1 and the Bible teaches he had two wives, whether they were simultaneous isn't stated.

6. Christ - Most general authorities including BY, HCK, Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, Jedediah Grant, the Millenial Star, and on and on...

7. Joseph Smith - Historical Records

Yeah, I believe they all were polygamists and as heads of their dispensations lived every one of the eternal laws and ordinances. Including the Savior.

I don't know why but this just sound so wrong.

[Calm]

I don't know why but this just sound so wrong.

How about because you live in a culture that says such is wrong?

[Bob Crockett]

It does.  Bill Dever's book has a subtitle,  Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Eerdmans, 2008).

 

His point (which is shared by most experts) is that the official theology reflected by the Deuteronomistic Historian and other theological schools among the scribes and prophets was not necessarily the religion of the common folk -- which is disclosed by archeological findings of a profusion of figurines and shrines in the homes of the people.  Careful biblical study also discloses that certain aspects Israelite religion fell into disfavor and an attempt was made to erase them from Holy Writ.   I am sure that you are aware of some of those more archaic features of Israelite faith.  If not, I'll happy to go over some of them for you.

 

Bill Dever is an atheist.  I've read his works.  I don't necessarily deride an atheist's works as irrelevant, but when one reads Dever one must realize that when he is talking about gods and God and the priesthood, he's really only talking about how these things are perceived anthropologically rather than what Jeremiah or Isaiah might think important.  I am personally critical of LDS scholars who triumph Dever's works where, in particular, they directly conflict with Church doctrine.   What is Church doctrine?  A really ephemeral term, but I think it is what lds.org publishes on its website as a church teaching; if it is found in a correlated manual or video, I must assume that it has high value as current Church doctrine.

 

Dever admits that he is trying to shoehorn his findings into his particular view of feminism.   Dever argues that the household (and temple) presence of the pagan feminine divine means that "true religion" in Israel must include the feminine devine, and as you argue, the partriarchal priesthood eventually had the upper hand and wrote her out of the scriptures.  You and others on this board seem to approve of the the notion that Dever's findings might be suggestive of a presence of a mother in heaven in Israelite theology.

 

However, looking at lds.org, it is evident that the Church teaches as official doctrine that Asherah was a totally apostate version of Israelite worship, and that Josiah's reforms properly attempted to wipe it out.  

 

Some references from lds.org:

 

See https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2011-03-40-josiah-and-the-book-of-the-law?lang=eng, which is a video discussing Josiah’s reform.

 

Kings 22’s preface in LDS Bible’s KJV:  Josiah reigns in righteousness in Judah—Hilkiah repairs the temple and finds the book of the law—Josiah sorrows because of the wickedness of his fathers—Huldah prophesies wrath upon the people but blessings upon Josiah.

 

Chapter 23:  Josiah reads the book of the covenant to the people—They covenant to keep the commandments—Josiah overturns the worship of false gods, removes the sodomites, and puts down idolatry—Idolatrous priests are slain—Judah holds a solemn Passover—Egypt subjects the land of Judah.

 

"Grove" at https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/grove?lang=eng&letter=g&country=afe:  In Hebrew, called Asherah (of which the plural is Asherim or Asheroth), either a living tree or a tree-like pole, set up as an object of worship, being symbolic of the female or productive principle in nature. Every Phoenician altar had an asherah near it. The word is often translated “green trees” or “grove.” This “nature worship” became associated with gross immorality, and so the practice of setting up such “groves” or idols was forbidden by Hebrew prophets (Deut. 16:21; Isa. 17:8; see also Num. 25:3; Judg. 2:11–13; 1 Sam. 7:3–4; 1 Kgs. 11:5; Micah 5:13–14).

 

I omit the several general conference talks on the subject.   I also omit the several references to the subject in Church CES and Sunday School manuals, which are also published on lds.org, and which are universally supportive of Josiah's efforts to wipe out Asherah.

 

One cannot conclude that "God has a wife" from the apostate worship of the feminine divine.   It has been my experience that the worship of a fertility goddess and female body parts reflected in idols has permeated the culture of pagan worship worldwide.  See a world-wide list of fertility goddesses at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fertility_deities.   To single out Asherah as a basis for a mother in heaven doctrine is like saying that  God condones casinos because He has a temple in Las Vegas.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[thesometimesaint]

And I would question whether or not he fulfilled all commandments given to all God's people throughout time** so I see no requirement for him to be involved in plural marriage, though it is possible.

** For example, he did not live by the commandment of the Word of Wisdom.

 

The WoW wasn't in effect at that time. IE; The use of tobacco by the people from the old world had to wait about another one thousand four hundred and ninety two years.

[Calm]

The WoW wasn't in effect at that time.

Yes, I know.  That was my point.  And there is no evidence that I can see that plural marriage was a commandment at the time of Christ, thus requiring him to be a polygynist.

[Stone holm]

Yes, I know.  That was my point.  And there is no evidence that I can see that plural marriage was a commandment at the time of Christ, thus requiring him to be a polygynist.

True. Although an argument could be made that given it would eventually be commanded it would have applied. I have trouble, however, with the idea that Adam was a polygamist despite Jewish folklore about Lilith since Eve was supposed to be the mother of all living. Nor do I think it was particularly essential that all of the heads of each dispensation be polygamist , although with the possible exceptions of Adam and Noah it was pretty likely. We need to remember that over the course of history and civilizations, monogamy, not polygamy, has been the exception. Even strictly scientific arguments have concluded that the natural tendency amongst Homo sapiens is mild poligamy.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, I know.  That was my point.  And there is no evidence that I can see that plural marriage was a commandment at the time of Christ, thus requiring him to be a polygynist.

 

I don't believe it was a commandment/requirement, but it was certainly permissible.  

[thesometimesaint]

True. Although an argument could be made that given it would eventually be commanded it would have applied. I have trouble, however, with the idea that Adam was a polygamist despite Jewish folklore about Lilith since Eve was supposed to be the mother of all living. Nor do I think it was particularly essential that all of the heads of each dispensation be polygamist , although with the possible exceptions of Adam and Noah it was pretty likely. We need to remember that over the course of history and civilizations, monogamy, not polygamy, has been the exception. Even strictly scientific arguments have concluded that the natural tendency amongst Homo sapiens is mild poligamy.

 

From the strictly scientific argument polygamy isn't sustainable over the long haul. Though it arguably should be permissible.

[Stone holm]

From the strictly scientific argument polygamy isn't sustainable over the long haul. Though it arguably should be permissible.

Evolutionists have argued that we are hard wired to be mildly polygamous . E.O. Wilson comes to mind. I suspect in the long haul we are going to find the traditional nuclear family non sustainable , unless we have some radical restructuring of our socio economics in the near term, otherwise we will probably be moving towards some kind of poly or group marriages.

[thesometimesaint]

Evolutionists have argued that we are hard wired to be mildly polygamous . E.O. Wilson comes to mind. I suspect in the long haul we are going to find the traditional nuclear family non sustainable , unless we have some radical restructuring of our socio economics in the near term, otherwise we will probably be moving towards some kind of poly or group marriages.

 

Simple mathematics makes it impossible to sustain. With 105 men born for every 100 women you come relatively quickly to the point of more and more men trying to marry fewer and fewer women. The thing that keeps it in check right now is that men die at a faster rate than women.That would make polyandry more sustainable.

 

I never said our present socioeconomic structures were even desirable let alone ideal. I think a communal style economic model based on something like a Israeli Kabbutz with separate family structures is more sustainable in the long haul.

[Stone holm]

Simple mathematics makes it impossible to sustain. With 105 men born for every 100 women you come relatively quickly to the point of more and more men trying to marry fewer and fewer women. The thing that keeps it in check right now is that men die at a faster rate than women.That would make polyandry more sustainable.

 

I never said our present socioeconomic structures were even desirable let alone ideal. I think a communal style economic model based on something like a Israeli Kabbutz with separate family structures is more sustainable in the long haul.

Which probably explains why gay men have been with us from time immemorial.

[Robert F. Smith]

It does.  Bill Dever's book has a subtitle,  Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Eerdmans, 2008).

 

His point (which is shared by most experts) is that the official theology reflected by the Deuteronomistic Historian and other theological schools among the scribes and prophets was not necessarily the religion of the common folk -- which is disclosed by archeological findings of a profusion of figurines and shrines in the homes of the people.  Careful biblical study also discloses that certain aspects Israelite religion fell into disfavor and an attempt was made to erase them from Holy Writ.   I am sure that you are aware of some of those more archaic features of Israelite faith.  If not, I'll happy to go over some of them for you.

Bill Dever is an atheist.  I've read his works.  I don't necessarily deride an atheist's works as irrelevant, but when one reads Dever one must realize that when he is talking about gods and God and the priesthood, he's really only talking about how these things are perceived anthropologically rather than what Jeremiah or Isaiah might think important.  I am personally critical of LDS scholars who triumph Dever's works where, in particular, they directly conflict with Church doctrine.   What is Church doctrine?  A really ephemeral term, but I think it is what lds.org publishes on its website as a church teaching; if it is found in a correlated manual or video, I must assume that it has high value as current Church doctrine.

 

Dever admits that he is trying to shoehorn his findings into his particular view of feminism.   Dever argues that the household (and temple) presence of the pagan feminine divine means that "true religion" in Israel must include the feminine devine, and as you argue, the partriarchal priesthood eventually had the upper hand and wrote her out of the scriptures.  You and others on this board seem to approve of the the notion that Dever's findings might be suggestive of a presence of a mother in heaven in Israelite theology.

 

However, looking at lds.org, it is evident that the Church teaches as official doctrine that Asherah was a totally apostate version of Israelite worship, and that Josiah's reforms properly attempted to wipe it out.  

 

................................................................

One cannot conclude that "God has a wife" from the apostate worship of the feminine divine.   It has been my experience that the worship of a fertility goddess and female body parts reflected in idols has permeated the culture of pagan worship worldwide.  See a world-wide list of fertility goddesses at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fertility_deities.   To single out Asherah as a basis for a mother in heaven doctrine is like saying that  God condones casinos because He has a temple in Las Vegas.

That's quite a rant, Bob, with plenty of straw men, ad hominems, and oddly mean-spirited claims thrown in for good measure.

 

The religious establishment (based on the king and priests in charge) at any given time may include nearly any form of "official" worship, including the sort of apostasies which you rail against.  The Bible tells that tale rather well, and you haven't covered the half of it.  The most important of God's prophets regularly inveighed against those established powers in high places, as did Jesus in his own time.  The religious and secular establishment in this country came down pretty hard on our Church and sought to murder our prophets.

 

What Dever's archeological work (and that of many others) has disclosed is something quite different.  It tells us about the "folk religion" of the common people.  It does not pass judgment on whether that folk religion was justified by some orthodox measure.  It is merely descriptive, and fits in with other evidence from inscriptions.  You apparently misinterpret that evidence as prescriptive.  You have a very bad habit of attacking people for providing descriptive evidence.  I am not responsible for how you or others interpret or misinterpret those bare facts.  In that area, you are on your own, but please don't blame me for someone else's interpretations, nor should you associate me with them.  If you want to ask my specific opinion on something, I'll be happy to give it.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Bob Crockett]

Criticism of your views is not criticism of the man.

I think my ultimate proposition, with which I think you disagree, but I am not sure, is that to theorize that God's true religion may have included the Caananite worship of Asherah is to come into direct conflict with correlated doctrine. A related proposition is that to suggest that the Josiah reform to remove the pole from the temple was an attempt to remove an element of the true religion is a suggestion also in direct conflict with correlated doctrine.

Perhaps you might comment upon the lds.org cites I posted that are relevant to the opening thread. I'd be interested. You're obviously an expert in the field. I am not. I have only studied Dever's popular book on the subject.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Stone holm]

That's quite a rant, Bob, with plenty of straw men, ad hominems, and oddly mean-spirited claims thrown in for good measure.

 

The religious establishment (based on the king and priests in charge) at any given time may include nearly any form of "official" worship, including the sort of apostasies which you rail against.  The Bible tells that tale rather well, and you haven't covered the half of it.  The most important of God's prophets regularly inveighed against those established powers in high places, as did Jesus in his own time.  The religious and secular establishment in this country came down pretty hard on our Church and sought to murder our prophets.

 

What Dever's archeological work (and that of many others) has disclosed is something quite different.  It tells us about the "folk religion" of the common people.  It does not pass judgment on whether that folk religion was justified by some orthodox measure.  It is merely descriptive, and fits in with other evidence from inscriptions.  You apparently misinterpret that evidence as prescriptive.  You have a very bad habit of attacking people for providing descriptive evidence.  I am not responsible for how you or others interpret or misinterpret those bare facts.  In that area, you are on your own, but please don't blame me for someone else's interpretations, nor should you associate me with them.  If you want to ask my specific opinion on something, I'll be happy to give it.

 

 

Trying to understand the reasoning here.  Who at the time declared the presence of Asherah in the Temple as "apostate", do we simply accept the Bible as it has been pruned and culled by various personages over the years as definitive on the subject, or has the Church specifically declared doctrine regarding the name of Heavenly Mother?  There is quite a bit of contention out there righrt now over the status of Mary Magdalene -- let alone Heavenly Mother?

[Bob Crockett]

Trying to understand the reasoning here.  Who at the time declared the presence of Asherah in the Temple as "apostate", do we simply accept the Bible as it has been pruned and culled by various personages over the years as definitive on the subject, or has the Church specifically declared doctrine regarding the name of Heavenly Mother?  There is quite a bit of contention out there righrt now over the status of Mary Magdalene -- let alone Heavenly Mother?

Various writers/prophets of the OT declared the worship of Asherah as apostate. I realize there is a feeling among a few to distrust the OT altogether. Devers argues that it is nothing more than a patriarchal rewrite of true history. For that reason of distrust, I have turned to official Church doctrine. It isn't that the Church has "specifically declared" or not a doctrine about heavenly mother. It is that the Church's correlated writings and publications specifically condemn Asherah.

I suppose the Canaanite worship of a fertility goddess might be worthy of some comment and attention by latter-day saints if it weren't for the fact fertility rite worship in the form of a little pornographic female idol have filled the ancient cultures of both hemispheres. Just because all ancient cultures promoted gambling and prostitution does not mean that there are divine origins for such, but that is the argument being made by a number of LDS scholars about Asherah and mother in heaven.

The LDS scholarly approach on this subject seems to go like this:

1. Mormons believe in a mother in heaven, therefore, God has a wife.

2. Devers published a popular book, entitled, "Does God Have a Wife?" He concludes that every-day Israelite worship, as well as worship within Solomon's temple, included the worship of the figurine or pole known as Asherah, a female fertility deity considered to be either El's or Yahweh's consort.

3. When the priesthood patriarch assumed control, particularly with the Josian reforms, they were the victors, they wrote the history, and they wrote the divine approval of Asheran worship out of the Hebrew Bible, Devers says.

4. Certain LDS scholars thus suggest that plain and precious things about the worship of the feminine divine have thus been purged from the scriptures, and Devers' story is a good example of that.

However, both Jewish and Christian scholars of a conservative ilk (i.e., those who believe that God speaks to His prophets) criticize Devers.

 

  *  William A. Tooman, Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal Winter 2007 Volume 5 Number 1:   Although generally praising the work, Tooman says:  "Dever makes his case, in part, by constructing false dichotomies."  One these false dichotomies is that he assumes that men read books and worship El, and women don't read books and worship idols.  "[H]is dichotomy between folk-religion and book-religion is handy but not very accurate. The great Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) attempted a similar dichotomy and was widely criticized for it."  Devers is "intolerant of any other interpretation of the data," which to me indicates that he suffers from the same tunnel vision as does Michael Coe.

 

  *  Steve Wiggins, Review, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, vol. 6 (2006):   This reviewer notes that "[t]here are serious difficulties . . that permeate this study."  Wiggins criticises Devers' conclusion that Israel turned from polytheism to monotheism, and the archeological record shows it, yet "when the discussion turns to the development of monotheism . . . the discussion becomes textual rather than archeological."

 

My assessment is that Devers' work is as a snarky controversialist. He doesn't believe in God, much less that God has a wife. He admits that he carries the watter for the feminist cause. His popular book is meant to persuade believers in the Bible that it is just made-up history calculated to deceive the believer about the fact that a female figurine was the true god of Israel. His popular book is an assault upon the Bible, but it is nonetheless interesting for the value it conveys.

 

LDS scholarly love affair with Devers (see Alyson Skabelund von Feldt in The FARMS Review 19/1 (2007)) simply cannot grasp or acknowledge Devers' methodological issues and outright agendum and biases.  These issues, agendum and biases -- to a one, apparently -- cut against the notion that God exists, that His Old Testament contains the words of His Prophets, and that the Old Testament conveys religious meaning.  Von Feldt says, at page 118 of her very long review, that:  "We cannot find certain truth through a study of texts and archeology alone, but we can be sure that new revelation is more likely to be forthcoming when we have made good use of the knowledge that is already available."  Yet, she fails to acknolwedge the deep-seated problems in Devers' works that other Canaanite or Hebrew scholars have seen, nor does she acknowledge that inspired LDS manuals and curricula and the statements over the pulpit have, indeed, taken a position on Asherah.  Why is there a need for new revelation when old inspired material exists?

 

Some LDS scholars, who already subscribe to the notion of a mother in heaven and a flawed Bible, seize upon Devers' secular thinking to argue that this little pornographic icon is the One True God's wife. I would not trust in this particular arm of the flesh.

Look, then, to what the LDS priesthood has said on the subject over the years. There is no equivocation -- they and the curricula point to the Josian reforms as the Lord properly intervening to wipe out an abhorrent practice.

I would not trust in this arm of the flesh because it give no credit to doctrinal pronouncements on the very issue -- much like the problem with the location of the Hill Cumorah, which I think is a lesser issue theologically.

 

And, please remember, a review of somebody's theses, such as my criticism of Daniel C. Peterson, Nephi and His Asherah, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9/2 (2000) or Kevin L. Barney, How to Worship Our Mother In Heaven (Without Getting Excommunicated), 122 Dialogue:  A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol 41, No. 4, does not mean I criticize the authors of these pieces, personally.   Although I find the conclusions of these articles appalling as to the possible relationship of Asherah to a mother in heaven, I nonetheless read them with interest, learn from them and appreciate them for what they are.   I have been on record saying that Dr. Peterson's piece is one of the shining moments of old FARMS, but I nonetheless disagree with it.  Isn't that really the mark of good scholarship and writing?  Your critics learn from you?

Edited January 7, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[thesometimesaint]

Which probably explains why gay men have been with us from time immemorial.

 

Whether it is genetics or a learned behavior homosexuality has been with us for a really long time.

 

Biologically speaking it is a dead end just like polygamy only quicker.