JLHPROF Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 "I can't imagine us as a people erecting asherah poles outside of our temples."Why would we need to when Heavenly Mother is so well represented in the temple already? (Sorry, couldn't resist my old soapbox doctrine - but I seriously am grateful that my recognition of Eve as my Heavenly Mother and the sacrifice she intentionally made for us allows me to both know more of her and revere her in a way others feel they can't do for their unknown Heavenly Mother).
Robert F. Smith Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Yet if God is real, He and His Word preceded pagans,too, therefore a female Figure/Goddess perpetuated by pagans might possibly be a remnant of God-revealed knowledge.This is true planet-wide.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) I understood that as King Solomon brought in more and more wives and concubines from other kingdoms, they brought their pagan dieties with them. He allowed them to continue their own religions. Asherah was one of these dieties among the pantheon of the canaanites. I wouldn't jump on the Asherah bandwagon until we hear from a living prophet, which I don't see coming any time soon. I can't imagine us as a people erecting asherah poles outside of our temples.I agree, but I think that you misunderstood Meadowchik. She was talking (like Hugh Nibley) about remnants of pagan versions of authentic ancient religion. Merely to make sense of the symbolism of the Bible, one must be fully aware of such remnants and their precursors. This is true of the Book of Mormon as well. Edited October 28, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 2
changed Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 "I can't imagine us as a people erecting asherah poles outside of our temples."Why would we need to when Heavenly Mother is so well represented in the temple already? (Sorry, couldn't resist my old soapbox doctrine - but I seriously am grateful that my recognition of Eve as my Heavenly Mother and the sacrifice she intentionally made for us allows me to both know more of her and revere her in a way others feel they can't do for their unknown Heavenly Mother). Sorry, but I think Eve is only a handmaid. What is the larger sacrifice - to eat the fruit and bear children? or to give your child to a handmaid to bear and raise until they come to the age of accountability? If there is anything we can learn from Eve, it is perfect beings do not bear children... We learn this from the Savior too - he was Their "only" begotten, the only one - and he was born to a handmaid. We can also learn this through Abraham, Isaac, and Sarah. Who do Abraham and Isaac represent? Who does Sarah represent? Both Abraham and Sarah were let off at the last minute - Abraham did not have to sacrifice his son, and Sarah did not have to rely on a handmaid, but for our real Parents? Jesus went through with the atonement, and he was also born to a handmaid. Our Mother is perfect. She is more than Eve, she is more than Mary, she is more than a mere handmaid, and has made greater sacrifices than handmaids.
Meadowchik Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 I understood that as King Solomon brought in more and more wives and concubines from other kingdoms, they brought their pagan dieties with them. He allowed them to continue their own religions. Asherah was one of these dieties among the pantheon of the canaanites. I wouldn't jump on the Asherah bandwagon until we hear from a living prophet, which I don't see coming any time soon. I can't imagine us as a people erecting asherah poles outside of our temples. I wouldn't expect such things either, even with some prophetic confirmation that Asherah was a pagan representation of HM. And yet that would exemplify the need for new revelation and prophecy, because sometimes old, possibly recycled revelations might bring so much baggage with them that they can no longer be recognized. I am grateful for continuing revelation. 1
Meadowchik Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 I agree, but I think that you misunderstood Meadowchik. She was talking (like Hugh Nibley) about remnants of pagan versions of authentic ancient religion. Merely to make sense of the symbolism of the Bible, one must be fully aware of such remnants and their precursors. This is true of the Book of Mormon as well. Yup. Such a view would make the many Messiahs of old prophecies make much more sense. We have a Peruvian sister in our ward. She says that even non-Mormon natives in South America believe that Quetzalcoatl is Jesus Christ, perhaps another reason why missionary work in that continent has been so successful.
Nofear Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Yup. Such a view would make the many Messiahs of old prophecies make much more sense. We have a Peruvian sister in our ward. She says that even non-Mormon natives in South America believe that Quetzalcoatl is Jesus Christ, perhaps another reason why missionary work in that continent has been so successful. Off topic: Some may identify Quetzalcoatl with Jesus Christ but that is more a reflection of us than history.See for example Brant Gardner's essay: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/055-06-10.pdf
jkwilliams Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 If there is plural marriage in the eternities, isn't it possible that we don't all have the same Heavenly Mother? 1
Meadowchik Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Off topic: Some may identify Quetzalcoatl with Jesus Christ but that is more a reflection of us than history.See for example Brant Gardner's essay: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/055-06-10.pdf Perhaps. Also, there is the matter of us injecting our own perceptions onto our representation of Christ. But, still, the question of chicken/egg remains. Where did Quetzacoatl come from? What did the Aztecs inject into Quetzacoatl which was not there before?
Gray Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 I understood that as King Solomon brought in more and more wives and concubines from other kingdoms, they brought their pagan dieties with them. He allowed them to continue their own religions. Asherah was one of these dieties among the pantheon of the canaanites. I wouldn't jump on the Asherah bandwagon until we hear from a living prophet, which I don't see coming any time soon. I can't imagine us as a people erecting asherah poles outside of our temples. Judaism evolved from the religious practices of the Canaanites and others in the region.
rodheadlee Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) If presiding means both share equally in decision making why call it presiding? I mean if it really is an equally based relationship we should be able to say the women presides also should we not? We don't, it isn't.Have you ever tried to sail a ship with 2 captains? Only one person at a time can call instructions to the helm. The one calling instruction is presiding. Edited October 28, 2015 by rodheadlee
filovirus Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Judaism evolved from the religious practices of the Canaanites and others in the region.Yes. But I seem to remember a duel of sorts between Elijah and his God vs 450 of the prophets of Baal and 400 of the prophets of Asherah. He quickly put out the idea that we should be worshiping pagan dieties. It didn't end well for the pagan prophets. 1 Kings 18.
jkwilliams Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Have you ever tried to sail a ship with 2 captains? Only one person at a time can call instructions to the helm. The one calling instruction is presiding. As long as you're on the same page, it doesn't matter who is calling instructions. You only need a "presider" when there is disagreement, and by your logic, the wife should always defer to the husband in such cases. Of course, if you believe that, you have clearly never been married.
Gray Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Yes. But I seem to remember a duel of sorts between Elijah and his God vs 450 of the prophets of Baal and 400 of the prophets of Asherah. He quickly put out the idea that we should be worshiping pagan dieties. It didn't end well for the pagan prophets. 1 Kings 18. That's an interesting story. Obviously just a story, with a bit of a nationalist bent to it. But it does seem to teach that people can and should test God and prophets by seeking empirical evidence. That's not the approach that is advocated now, except by atheists. In any case, I don't think it was so much that Baal was "pagan", but that he wasn't the God of Israel. Asherah on the other hand was the wife of El (Eloheim). El is right in the name, Israel. 22 Elijah said, “I am the only prophet of the Lord here, but there are four hundred fifty prophets of Baal. 23 Bring two bulls. Let the prophets of Baal choose one bull and kill it and cut it into pieces. Then let them put the meat on the wood, but they are not to set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull, putting the meat on the wood but not setting fire to it. 24 You prophets of Baal, pray to your god, and I will pray to the Lord. The god who answers by setting fire to his wood is the true God.”All the people agreed that this was a good idea.25 Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “There are many of you, so you go first. Choose a bull and prepare it. Pray to your god, but don’t start the fire.”26 So they took the bull that was given to them and prepared it. They prayed to Baal from morning until noon, shouting “Baal, answer us!” But there was no sound, and no one answered. They danced around the altar they had built.27 At noon Elijah began to make fun of them. “Pray louder!” he said. “If Baal really is a god, maybe he is thinking, or busy, or traveling! Maybe he is sleeping so you will have to wake him!”28 The prophets prayed louder, cutting themselves with swords and spears until their blood flowed, which was the way they worshiped. 29 The afternoon passed, and the prophets continued to act like this until it was time for the evening sacrifice. But no voice was heard; Baal did not answer, and no one paid attention.30 Then Elijah said to all the people, “Now come to me.” So they gathered around him, and Elijah rebuilt the altar of the Lord, which had been torn down. 31 He took twelve stones, one stone for each of the twelve tribes, the number of Jacob’s sons. (The Lord changed Jacob’s name to Israel.)32 Elijah used these stones to rebuild the altar in honor of the Lord. Then he dug a ditch around the altar that was big enough to hold about thirteen quarts of seed. 33 Elijah put the wood on the altar, cut the bull into pieces, and laid the pieces on the wood. 34 Then he said, “Fill four jars with water, and pour it on the meat and on the wood.” Then Elijah said, “Do it again,” and they did it again. Then he said, “Do it a third time,” and they did it the third time. 35 So the water ran off the altar and filled the ditch.36 At the time for the evening sacrifice, the prophet Elijah went near the altar. “Lord, you are the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel,” he prayed. “Prove that you are the God of Israel and that I am your servant. Show these people that you commanded me to do all these things. 37 Lord, answer my prayer so these people will know that you, Lord, are God and that you will change their minds.”38 Then fire from the Lord came down and burned the sacrifice, the wood, the stones, and the ground around the altar. It also dried up the water in the ditch. 39 When all the people saw this, they fell down to the ground, crying, “The Lord is God! The Lord is God!”40 Then Elijah said, “Capture the prophets of Baal! Don’t let any of them run away!” The people captured all the prophets. Then Elijah led them down to the Kishon Valley, where he killed them.
mfbukowski Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 As long as you're on the same page, it doesn't matter who is calling instructions. You only need a "presider" when there is disagreement, and by your logic, the wife should always defer to the husband in such cases. Of course, if you believe that, you have clearly never been married.No that's your logic.The comment was about the need for someone to preside in general and said nothing about sex or marriage.In fact it seemed designed to avoid that issue. It did not specify the sex of the person at the helm.
mfbukowski Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 How is it fair that women receive superior temple blessings?All the experts on marriage, ask your wives in the celestial room sometime
mfbukowski Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 In fact I will assert without being able to show evidence from the temple that women do not need the experience of presiding as part of moving beyond the male ego to become righteous leaders who lead in lovePriesthood is to teach men to lead in love, it is a schoolmaster like the law of Moses wasIt is a preparatory Gospel to allow us to become part of a Divine Pair without having our domineering biological instincts, which were necessary in our evolutionary past
Zakuska Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 40 Then Elijah said, “Capture the prophets of Baal! Don’t let any of them run away!” The people captured all the prophets. Then Elijah led them down to the Kishon Valley, where he killed them. Can you Imagine President Monson or one of the 12 doing this with a bunch of Baptist preachers?! I am sure glad we don't live in OT times.
jkwilliams Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Can you Imagine President Monson or one of the 12 doing this with a bunch of Baptist preachers?! I am sure glad we don't live in OT times. I don't know. I might go to sacrament meeting more often if that kind of stuff was going on.
rodheadlee Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) As long as you're on the same page, it doesn't matter who is calling instructions. You only need a "presider" when there is disagreement, and by your logic, the wife should always defer to the husband in such cases. Of course, if you believe that, you have clearly never been married.The person on watch is presiding. I've been married for 42 years. You can't be on duty 24/7. Edited October 29, 2015 by rodheadlee 1
Meadowchik Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 As long as you're on the same page, it doesn't matter who is calling instructions. You only need a "presider" when there is disagreement, and by your logic, the wife should always defer to the husband in such cases. Of course, if you believe that, you have clearly never been married.No, sometimes a presider is needed to avoid misunderstanding in the first place. Sometimes it's just too costly to wait for disagreement.We've agreed, for example, that I'll do all the communicating with the tenants of our rental next door. Agreeing was not a problem, it was the miscommunication that helped lead to very painful situations because they were talking to both of us separately about the same things. 2
Calm Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 No, sometimes a presider is needed to avoid misunderstanding in the first place. Especially when we agree that doing something is something we don't want to do...like talking to the insurance people. 1
PeterPear Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Heavenly Father doesn't reveal information on any Mother in Heaven, because He loves Her more than His children.And if any of us "children" mocked His wife, He would lose His patience and thrash you to an inch of your eternal non-existence!
Five Solas Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Heavenly Father doesn't reveal information on any Mother in Heaven, because He loves Her more than His children.And if any of us "children" mocked His wife, He would lose His patience and thrash you to an inch of your eternal non-existence!You might have meant that in jest, PeterPear. But it is curious to think the Mormon Heavenly Father would permit his "literal begotten son" to die a shameful, agonizing death nailed to a Roman cross--but then would respond as you suggest in the event of a disrespectful word directed towards his wife (or wives). A sense of proportion might seem to be lacking, no? --Erik 3
rodheadlee Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 You might have meant that in jest, PeterPear. But it is curious to think the Mormon Heavenly Father would permit his "literal begotten son" to die a shameful, agonizing death nailed to a Roman cross--but then would respond as you suggest in the event of a disrespectful word directed towards his wife (or wives). A sense of proportion might seem to be lacking, no? --Erik Not really, If I had a son I would be proud if he were as tuff as Jesus Christ. If you mess with my wife, I'll mess you up.
Recommended Posts