First Vision and Asherah

[firepatch36]

In listening to the church's podcast on the First Vision, I got to thinking about Asherah and the vision. Today I read Val Larsen's article that hints at this, but I wanted to go a little further than he did.

Nephi wanted wisdom (name for Mother in Heaven) and went to a grove (her symbol). In one of the podcasts it mentioned that it was springtime and one of the trees that could have been present was a cherry tree with white blossoms. White fruit is a known symbol of Asherah (Margaret Barker mentions this in her BYU Studies article). When Joseph Smith left the grove, he wrote that his soul was filled with love for many days. The tree of life in Nephi's vision associated with Asherah and is defined to be the love of God.

 

This got me thinking about the Lehi/Nephi vision of the Tree of Life. Joseph Smith was adrift spiritually (in the wilderness) and then read the scriptures (iron rod). Holding fast to the scriptures he read he began going to the tree of life (grove) but was stopped by a "thick darkness" (mist of darkness). He had the vision in the grove, and then after leaving was mocked for his testimony (great and spacious building). 

 

The river of filthy waters didn't immediately come to mind as a parallel. One way I thought of was that water is typically a positive symbol - Christ as the living waters, the waters of baptism, or even positive references to water in the Tree of Life vision. Dirty waters could then be an apostate form of the gospel. This is what Joseph Smith was explicitly warned against ("draw near to me with their lips..."). 

 

Is there something here? Or am I seeing what I want to? 

 

 

 

 

 

[pogi]

19 hours ago, firepatch36 said:

In listening to the church's podcast on the First Vision, I got to thinking about Asherah and the vision. Today I read Val Larsen's article that hints at this, but I wanted to go a little further than he did.

Nephi wanted wisdom (name for Mother in Heaven) and went to a grove (her symbol). In one of the podcasts it mentioned that it was springtime and one of the trees that could have been present was a cherry tree with white blossoms. White fruit is a known symbol of Asherah (Margaret Barker mentions this in her BYU Studies article). When Joseph Smith left the grove, he wrote that his soul was filled with love for many days. The tree of life in Nephi's vision associated with Asherah and is defined to be the love of God.

 

This got me thinking about the Lehi/Nephi vision of the Tree of Life. Joseph Smith was adrift spiritually (in the wilderness) and then read the scriptures (iron rod). Holding fast to the scriptures he read he began going to the tree of life (grove) but was stopped by a "thick darkness" (mist of darkness). He had the vision in the grove, and then after leaving was mocked for his testimony (great and spacious building). 

 

The river of filthy waters didn't immediately come to mind as a parallel. One way I thought of was that water is typically a positive symbol - Christ as the living waters, the waters of baptism, or even positive references to water in the Tree of Life vision. Dirty waters could then be an apostate form of the gospel. This is what Joseph Smith was explicitly warned against ("draw near to me with their lips..."). 

 

Is there something here? Or am I seeing what I want to? 

Are you suggesting that Heavenly Mother was in the vision, or simply that there is some symbolism surrounding the experience? 

I have never heard anyone link the tree of life to Asherah.  Do you have any references for that?

[Amulek]

53 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have never heard anyone link the tree of life to Asherah.  Do you have any references for that?

DCP, here: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol9/iss2/4/

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

DCP, here: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol9/iss2/4/

 

Thanks.

I have to disagree with DCP though.  I highly doubt that Nephi was linking Ashera to the tree of life.  Not only was Nephi shown the birth of the Savior, but he was shown the ministry and atonement of Jesus Christ to help him fully comprehend the tree of life (love of God).  In fact, the BoM goes as far to say in 1 Nephi 11

Quote

that which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

We all know who the fountain of living waters (a.k.a the tree of life) represents. 

Ashera is not the only one associated with trees.  

Quote

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland taught that the tree of life is a symbol of Jesus Christ. He said: “The images of Christ and the tree [are] inextricably linked. … At the very outset of the Book of Mormon, … Christ is portrayed as the source of eternal life and joy, the living evidence of divine love, and the means whereby God will fulfill his covenant with the house of Israel and indeed the entire family of man, returning them all to their eternal promises” (Christ and the New Covenant [1997], 160, 162).

 

[firepatch36]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that Heavenly Mother was in the vision, or simply that there is some symbolism surrounding the experience? 

I'm suggesting her symbolism was present. For all we know she could have been there, but it was never related to us. 

[Bob Crockett]

Asherah is a pagan fertility god.  Never mentioned favorably in the Old Testament. Barker draws on atheistic feminist sources.  I would not trust her judgment. Her doctorate is honorary. 

When LDS official study guides refer to Asherah, the adhere to OT condemnation.  Those study guides are vetted by the Brethren. 

Some LDS thinkers illogically argue that God condoned the cult of Asherah by sparing her priests in the contest with Elijah.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

On 2/23/2020 at 6:07 PM, firepatch36 said:

Is there something here? Or am I seeing what I want to? 

It doesn't matter. 

This is not about science and finding out what  is "really out there", but what ideas give meaning to your beliefs

Go for it.

I have had similar inklings.

[Kevin Christensen]

13 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Asherah is a pagan fertility god.  Never mentioned favorably in the Old Testament. Barker draws on atheistic feminist sources.  I would not trust her judgment. Her doctorate is honorary. 

When LDS official study guides refer to Asherah, the adhere to OT condemnation.  Those study guides are vetted by the Brethren. 

Some LDS thinkers illogically argue that God condoned the cult of Asherah by sparing her priests in the contest with Elijah.

The sources Barker uses are these:

Temple Theology draws on all available resources:  

• Hebrew and Greek Scriptures
• New Testament
• Jewish and Christian Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
• Dead Sea Scrolls
• Other Ancient Near Eastern texts
• Gnostic texts
• Rabbinic and later Jewish writings and traditions
• Early Christian writings and liturgies
• Memories that survive in art and architecture 

A complex and sophisticated theology is beginning to re-emerge from the symbols and stories of a pre-philosophical culture.

Here is how Rowan Williams describes her scholarship in her important book The Mother of the Lord :

Quote

"Once again, Dr Barker offers us a massively learned and creative re-reading of what the Bible has to tell us about the religion of ancient Israel, using her wide knowledge of material in Hebrew, Syriac and other Semitic languages, texts from Jewish, Gnostic and Christian sources. She reinforces the case she has made in earlier books that the Hebrew Scriptures represent a deeply conflicted set of traditions, and excavates the lost cult of the divine 'Lady of the Temple', the personification of divine Wisdom and the bearer of the divine Son. Her contention that this alone makes sense not only of tensions within the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, but also of persistent and otherwise baffling themes in early Christianity is argued with vigour and comprehensiveness of scope. Controversial as it is, this is a very significant contribution to a fuller understanding of both Christian and Jewish origins."

Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury 

Notice that he does not mention a dependence on atheistic feminist sources, but rather, something with far more range, depth, significance and value.

Her Doctorate was bestowed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in response to the publication of her book Temple Themes in Christian Worship in 2008.

For an informed LDS perspective on the appearances and context of the term Asherah in the Bible, see Kevin Barney, here, notably the section on "Some possible positive allusions to Asherah in the Bible."

https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Kevin-Barney-MotherInHeaven.pdf

No informed LDS reader should be unaware that one of the most important symbols of Asherah was the Tree of Life.  We cannot fully appreciate the appearance of the Tree of Life in the Book of Mormon without taking Nephi's blunt advice in 2 Nephi 25:5, that "there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews."   That includes the authors of LDS study guides.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Bob Crockett]

Kevin.  Your perspective is heterodox.  One need only review LDS authorized study guides.  If they say that Asherah was an apostate fertility goddess, and they do, then a true scholar would at least acknowledge such.  The question is not so much what is the state of the art of Cannanite scholarship, but what is revealed doctrine.  

Barker's doctorate is honorary.  In most universities she could not be tenured.  I'm surprised that one would try and dress it up.  At BYU she would be an untenured instructor.  

Edited February 25, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

I've heard a rumbling that Barker has lost the favor of BYU scholars.  True?

 

[Kevin Christensen]

17 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I've heard a rumbling that Barker has lost the favor of BYU scholars.  True?

 

When I was at the New Testament Conference on Hebrews last year, giving a talk by invitation, despite my lack of tenure anywhere, I was had lunch at a table with Jack Welch, John Gee, among others.  Jack told the story of how they invited Margaret to come to the open house at the Paris Temple.  The Temple President and Matron were fans, so with Jack, they had a special, slow tour.  When they showed her the rooms for the initiatory anointing, she beamed "You have that too!"  When she was done, she said, "Everything was ancient except the electric lights."  She was so impressed that when the Rome Temple was opening, she called Jack and asked if the LDS would mind if she could come and take the Open House tour again.

So there remain a great many LDS who enjoy her work.  She says that when she teaches her own Summer school classes in England, about a third of her students are LDS.  She likes having us because "they know what I am talking about."  My recent essay in Interpreter "Light and Perspective" did look at a few LDS scholars who dismiss or neglect her work.  And I do mention a great many who continue to enjoy and reference her work.  But that is how it goes.  Scholarship is a dynamic, business, with groups of scholars traveling in schools and streams, and some use hierarchy as a technique for managing complexity.   I remember encountering members who were suspicious of Hugh Nibley because he wasn't a general authority.   It's easy to label someone as a source of Fake news.  But to actually get in and "prove contraries" is how scholarship works, and is how minds expand and souls enlarge.   Asking whether a person or source is "orthodox" means that the only question at issue is "Us" or "Not us."  I think a more important and productive question is "Why us?"  That leads to greater light and knowledge.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

No informed LDS reader should be unaware that one of the most important symbols of Asherah was the Tree of Life. 

Nephi didn't seem to know what the tree meant and had to ask.  So, I find it hard to accept that Asherah was ubiquitously understood to be the tree of life in the time of Nephi.   Especially considering that her worship by Hebrews would have been non-existent around the time that Nephi departed for the Americas.  

Quote

At least some Israelites worshiped her over a period extending from the conquest of Canaan in the second millennium before Christ to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 b.c. (the time of Lehi’s departure with his family from the Old World).

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1253&context=jbms

I also find Daniel Peterson's essay problematic in that he associates "the fountain of living waters" with a symbol of Ashera.

In his essay he states:

Quote

In 1 Nephi 8:13–14, Lehi’s tree is associated with a river and spring of water. “The symbols of fountain and tree of life are frequent” in wisdom literature too.91 Nephi himself, in 1 Nephi 11:25, actually equates the “tree of life” with “the fountain of living waters,” “which waters,” he relates, “are a representation of the love of God.” “And I also beheld,” he continues, “that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.”

The fountain of living waters has always been associated with Jehovah.

Quote

For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.—Jeremiah 2:13.

...because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters - Jeremiah 17:13

Jeremiah, being a contemporary of Nephi, gives us an idea of how Nephi would have understood this symbol. 

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

On 2/23/2020 at 7:07 PM, firepatch36 said:

Nephi wanted wisdom (name for Mother in Heaven) and went to a grove (her symbol). 

I think you meant to say Joseph instead of Nephi, but I like that symbolism a lot. I have never considered that before. 

Joseph was seeking for wisdom and found it in a grove of trees. That is pretty cool!

[Kevin Christensen]

On 2/25/2020 at 12:28 PM, pogi said:

Nephi didn't seem to know what the tree meant and had to ask.  So, I find it hard to accept that Asherah was ubiquitously understood to be the tree of life in the time of Nephi.   Especially considering that her worship by Hebrews would have been non-existent around the time that Nephi departed for the Americas.  

I also find Daniel Peterson's essay problematic in that he associates "the fountain of living waters" with a symbol of Ashera.

In his essay he states:

The fountain of living waters has always been associated with Jehovah.

Jeremiah, being a contemporary of Nephi, gives us an idea of how Nephi would have understood this symbol. 

 

What Daniel Peterson points out that when Nephi asks about the meaning of the Tree, that the answer comes not in the form of explanations, but in terms of pictures that did not include any trees.  He saw the Virgin Mary, the birth of her son, and the atonement.   The answer came in the form of images that Nephi himself could then interpret in relation to the Tree. 

I happen to think Peterson's essay is one of the most important and insightful ever written.  He wrote it before encountering Barker, but he saw the connection, and she has read it and admires his insights.  He updated it for a presentation at the Temple Studies group in Logan a few years ago.  The whole proceedings are available online in a pdf.  It includes presentations by Barker and Jack Welch as well as Peterson and others, and is mind blowing throughout. 

http://www.templestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/MormonismAndTheTemple.pdf

And of course when Margaret spoke on the Book of Mormon at the 2005 Joseph Smith Conference in Washington D.C., she famously said this:

Quote

The tree of life made one happy, according to the Book of Proverbs (Proverbs 3:8), but for detailed descriptions of the tree we have to rely on the noncanonical texts. Enoch described it as perfumed, with fruit like grapes ( Enoch 32:5), and a text discovered in Egypt in 945 described the tree as beautiful, fiery, and with fruit like white grapes.²¹ I do not know of any other source that describes the fruit as white grapes. Imagine my surprise when I read the account of Lehi’s vision of the tree whose white fruit made one happy, and the interpre-tation that the Virgin in Nazareth was the mother of the Son of God after the manner of the flesh ( Nephi :4–23).²² This is the Heavenly Mother, represented by the tree of life, and then Mary and her Son on earth. This revelation to Joseph Smith was the ancient Wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 bce.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd28/c58fb1dff0f39495997d8edfe862d0fa1445.pdf

I'd love to reference Alyson Von Feldt's Occasional Paper on the Wisdom Traditions in the Book of Mormon, but alas, it's been unavailable since last June or so.    Her review of Dever's Did God Have a Wife? is a notable bit of scholarship itself.

So yes, Jeremiah himself closely associates the Tree and flowing waters in Jer 17 and elsewhere, but symbolic associations can have more than one meaning and more than one referent.  Take the word "Father" for instance.  It can not only point to El Elyon, but also Jesus (King Benjamin's discourse shows how, and Barker's The Great Angel explains that in the Bible, all of the sons of El Elyon are heavenly beings, and all of the sons of Yahweh are humans who have made covenants), to George Washington, to my Dad, and even to me.  That is one reason why symbolic stories are so rich and meaningful.  The Parables of Jesus have more than one layer of meaning.  There are other texts that associate the Tree and the Fountain of living waters with the Lord, and also with Wisdom.  Wisdom itself can refer to a set of associated ideas, as well as one who was with the Lord before the creation as his daily delight, as shown in Proverbs.   I personally think the best examination of Jeremiah is in Barker's The Mother of the Lord.

Some of my thinking on Jeremiah is here:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/prophets-and-kings-in-lehis-jerusalem-and-margaret-barkers-temple-theology/

And Val Larsen's current essay at Interpreter is very much worth reading, mind expanding and enlightening throughout.  He refers to another of his own essays at Square Two that is also very good.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited March 12, 2020 by Kevin Christensen

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

What Daniel Peterson points out that when Nephi asks about the meaning of the Tree, that the answer comes not in the form of explanations, but in terms of pictures that did not include any trees.  He saw the Virgin Mary, the birth of her son, and the atonement.   The answer came in the form of images that Nephi himself could then interpret in relation to the Tree. 

I happen to think Peterson's essay is one of the most important and insightful ever written.  He wrote it before encountering Barker, but he saw the connection, and she has read it and admires his insights.  He updated it for a presentation at the Temple Studies group in Logan a few years ago.  The whole proceedings are available online in a pdf.  It includes presentations by Barker and Jack Welch as well as Peterson and others, and is mind blowing throughout. 

http://www.templestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/MormonismAndTheTemple.pdf

And of course when Margaret spoke on the Book of Mormon at the 2005 Joseph Smith Conference in Washington D.C., she famously said this:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd28/c58fb1dff0f39495997d8edfe862d0fa1445.pdf

I'd love to reference Alyson Von Feldt's Occasional Paper on the Wisdom Traditions in the Book of Mormon, but alas, it's been unavailable since last June or so.    Her review of Dever's Did God Have a Wife? is a notable bit of scholarship itself.

So yes, Jeremiah himself closely associates the Tree and flowing waters in Jer 17 and elsewhere, but symbolic associations can have more than one meaning and more than one referent.  Take the word "Father" for instance.  It can not only point to El Elyon, but also Jesus (King Benjamin's discourse shows how, and Barker's The Great Angel explains that in the Bible, all of the sons of El Elyon are heavenly beings, and all of the sons of Yahweh are human's who have made covenants), to George Washington, to my Dad, and even to me.  That is one reason why symbolic stories are so rich and meaningful.  The Parables of Jesus have more than one layer of meaning.  There are other texts that associate the Tree and the Fountain of living waters with the Lord, and also with Wisdom.  Wisdom itself can refer to a set of associated ideas, as well as one who was with the Lord before the creation as his daily delight, as shown in Proverbs.   I personally think the best examination of Jeremiah is in Barker's The Mother of the Lord.

Some of my thinking on Jeremiah is here:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/prophets-and-kings-in-lehis-jerusalem-and-margaret-barkers-temple-theology/

And Val Larsen's current essay at Interpreter is very much worth reading, mind expanding and enlightening throughout.  He refers to another of his own essays at Square Two that is also very good.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks for the references.   I agree that symbols can have more than one referent and meaning, but I fail to see where Ashera is ever worshiped or symbolized as a fountain.  You mention Jer 17 but the tree by the fountain in that verse is suggested to be a man who trusts in the Lord and whose roots are nourished by the fountain (the LORD - vs 13).   If the tree symbol of Ashera is frequently seen in imagery next to a fountain it is likely because Ashera (tree) was considered to be the cohort of Jehovah (fountain).  Those two symbols may have been frequently paired together in imagery for that reason.  This brings up another question with Peterson's essay for me.  Ashera was understood to be the cohort of Jehovah/Jesus, not his mother, so that link to Mary doesn't make sense to me.  Correct me if I am wrong, but Ashera was not perceived to be the literal mother of mankind was she?  Why would the word of God lead to Ashera, and why would she be associated with the love of God for mankind?  To understand the love of God, Nephi was shown the birth, life, ministry, and atonement of Jesus Christ - the fountain of living waters, why would he be shown all of that if Ashera was the intended symbol of the love of God and not Christ?   To me, the fact that the fruit is said to be grapes is yet another strong association with Christ - a.k.a the true vine.  It all points to Christ.  

Quote

I am the TRUE vine, and My Father is the keeper of the vineyard. 2He cuts off every branch in Me that bears no fruit, and every branch that does bear fruit, He prunes to make it even more fruitful.…

Of course the grape is also associated with the symbol of his blood.

The question still remains, why did Nephi have to ask if he already understood the association of the tree of life with Ashera?  It seems highly unlikely that Nephi would have worshiped or associated himself with Ashera in that time period if worship of her was completely absent by the time of the Babylonian conquest. 

I admit that I haven't read all of your references yet, but so far I remain unconvinced.  Nephi's entire vision was of Christ (that shouldn't be downplayed), the symbol of the fountain is undeniably linked to Christ, the vine is Christ, the tree is associated with Christ (the cross), the grapes are associated with Christ.  The scriptures state that the very manifestation of the love of God is made manifest in Christ (1 John 4:9)  Every single last detail points to Christ.  The one sole association to Ashera is the coincidence that it was a tree.  But that tree (Ashera) was never understood to be the mother of man (as far as I understand) and neither was she understood to be the mother of God/Jehovah.  It just doesn't add up to me. 

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by pogi

[Kevin Christensen]

Pogi asks:

"The question still remains, why did Nephi have to ask if he already understood the association of the tree of life with Ashera?"

The answer, of course, is context.   A tree by itself is just a tree.  Add a few important contextual details, (the images the angel provided, or that Mark Smith and others provided to Daniel Peterson) and everything comes together in a moment of enlightenment.   Restricting context can have the opposite effect.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Boanerges]

Cherry trees don't blossom in this part of New York until mid to late May. I wouldn't call that "early in the spring."

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Pogi asks:

"The question still remains, why did Nephi have to ask if he already understood the association of the tree of life with Ashera?"

The answer, of course, is context.   A tree by itself is just a tree.  Add a few important contextual details, (the images the angel provided, or that Mark Smith and others provided to Daniel Peterson) and everything comes together in a moment of enlightenment.   Restricting context can have the opposite effect.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I agree that context matters.  I am not trying to be stubborn, but when I study the over-all context of the vision, I fail to see what would lead Nephi to associate the tree with Ashera instead of Jesus Christ.  What images did the angel show Nephi that made it abundantly clear that this was the symbol of Ashera?  Peterson suggests that it was the vision of Mary, the mother of God, that made it clear for Nephi.   Lets look at the context of the vision of Mary though -  Peterson suggests that it was only after seeing Mary that Nephi understood what the tree meant, but Mary was only a side detail in the larger context of the condescension of God (vs. 16).  What the spirit was showing him was Jesus Christ:

Quote

 

4: And the Spirit said unto me: Believest thou that thy father saw the tree of which he hath spoken?

5 And I said: Yea, thou knowest that I believe all the words of my father.

6. ... because thou believest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.

7 And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.

16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension 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.

21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!  Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

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

 

To me, it is beyond evident that the condescension of God was the context of the vision, and Mary was simply a detail in that overall context. 

Verse 21 is very telling.  Notice that the angel didn't say "Behold Mary, the mother of God! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree...?"  Nope, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! [which he had foretold that he would witness of] Knowest thout the meaning of the tree...?"  Mary is only shown to understand the condescension of God, that he was born to earth. 

What was the sign given in verse 7?  The spirit didn't say "this shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after you see the tree you will also see a woman/mother..."  Instead he said that the sign is that he would see "a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God."  That is the sign!  That is the symbol!

For the next several chapters, the vision centers around Jesus Christ.  That is the context. 

Notice how the vision of the condescension of God helps Nephi to understand that the tree represents the love of God.  This very thing is spelled out plainly in the New Testament as well - 

Quote

In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9)

How fitting is it then that Nephi would be shown the condescension of God in vision to understand the manifestation of the love of God in the fruit of the tree!?  Nephi basically saw 1 John 4:9 in vision.

I think it is too much context and symbolism to be ignored. 

Compare all that against the evidence for Ashera - there was a tree, and Nephi saw a mother in vision.  I guess people will see what they want, but I feel that Peterson was restricting context in his essay. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by pogi

[Bob Crockett]

6 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

When I was at the New Testament Conference on Hebrews last year, giving a talk by invitation, despite my lack of tenure anywhere, I was had lunch at a table with Jack Welch, John Gee, among others.  Jack told the story of how they invited Margaret to come to the open house at the Paris Temple.  The Temple President and Matron were fans, so with Jack, they had a special, slow tour.  When they showed her the rooms for the initiatory anointing, she beamed "You have that too!"  When she was done, she said, "Everything was ancient except the electric lights."  She was so impressed that when the Rome Temple was opening, she called Jack and asked if the LDS would mind if she could come and take the Open House tour again.

So there remain a great many LDS who enjoy her work.  She says that when she teaches her own Summer school classes in England, about a third of her students are LDS.  She likes having us because "they know what I am talking about."  My recent essay in Interpreter "Light and Perspective" did look at a few LDS scholars who dismiss or neglect her work.  And I do mention a great many who continue to enjoy and reference her work.  But that is how it goes.  Scholarship is a dynamic, business, with groups of scholars traveling in schools and streams, and some use hierarchy as a technique for managing complexity.   I remember encountering members who were suspicious of Hugh Nibley because he wasn't a general authority.   It's easy to label someone as a source of Fake news.  But to actually get in and "prove contraries" is how scholarship works, and is how minds expand and souls enlarge.   Asking whether a person or source is "orthodox" means that the only question at issue is "Us" or "Not us."  I think a more important and productive question is "Why us?"  That leads to greater light and knowledge.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

In approximately 1967 Raphael Patai began to argue that Canaanites worshipped, according to archaeology, both Yahweh and Asherah.  I don't dispute the findings of modern archaeology, including the similar conclusions of William G. Dever (Did God Have a Wife?:   Archeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (2005)), an avowed atheist and feminist.  

But when a theologian takes the findings of archeology to shoehorn the theory into a much larger theological framework, then I have a problem.  Revealed history teaches that the Asherah cult was apostate.  One cannot conclude, thusly, that revealed history is wrong because actual history is different.  There is no doubt the Bible teaches that ancient Israel worshipped Asherah -- wrongly.  

The adoration of the uncredentialed Margaret Barker rather mystifies me.  I first became familar with her when I read your FARMS paper.  In particular, she condemns Josiah's reform as inconsistent with true worship when, in fact, and today, an entire LDS Sunday School lesson is devoted to congratulating Josiah for his reform.  

I don't know who is right; Latter-day Saint manual writers or Margaret Barker (and, by extension, Dever).  But I do know they conflict with each other, and the gap is wide. 

Finally, your post argues the exception, rather than the rule.  Because some experts are uncredentialed (you, Nibley), thus credentials mean nothing.  That's just wrong.  Credentials may mean little in the study of the history of surfing but it means everything in the study of Canaanite history.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/24/2020 at 2:38 PM, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that Heavenly Mother was in the vision, or simply that there is some symbolism surrounding the experience? 

I have never heard anyone link the tree of life to Asherah.  Do you have any references for that?

Quote

. . . the stylized tree or wooden pole which became known as asherah or asherim. Trees were revered as symbols of life and nourishment in arid regions and so became associated with Asherah and her cult. Many scholars believe that Asherah’s tree functioned in the Garden of Eden parable.  https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-religions/asherah-0010611.

See especially, Daniel C. Peterson, "Nephi and His Asherah," JBMS, 9/2 (2000):16-25,80-81, online at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol9/iss2/4

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

In approximately 1967 Raphael Patai began to argue that Canaanites worshipped, according to archaeology, both Yahweh and Asherah.  I don't dispute the findings of modern archaeology, including the similar conclusions of William G. Dever (Did God Have a Wife?:   Archeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (2005)), an avowed atheist and feminist.  

But when a theologian takes the findings of archeology to shoehorn the theory into a much larger theological framework, then I have a problem.  Revealed history teaches that the Asherah cult was apostate.  One cannot conclude, thusly, that revealed history is wrong because actual history is different.  There is no doubt the Bible teaches that ancient Israel worshipped Asherah -- wrongly.  

The adoration of the uncredentialed Margaret Barker rather mystifies me.  I first became familar with her when I read your FARMS paper.  In particular, she condemns Josiah's reform as inconsistent with true worship when, in fact, and today, an entire LDS Sunday School lesson is devoted to congratulating Josiah for his reform.  

I don't know who is right; Latter-day Saint manual writers or Margaret Barker (and, by extension, Dever).  But I do know they conflict with each other, and the gap is wide. 

Finally, your post argues the exception, rather than the rule.  Because some experts are uncredentialed (you, Nibley), thus credentials mean nothing.  That's just wrong.  Credentials may mean little in the study of the history of surfing but it means everything in the study of Canaanite history.

Still on that same diatribe, Bob?  You seem never able to accept that the ordinary Israelites in ancient times worshiped Yahweh and his Asherah.  The Asherah figurines are ubiquitous in archeological excavations, and even you admit that the prophets inveighed against such worship.  It is quite possible that the same phenomenon drove Nehushtan from the temple precincts.  And your distaste for factual appraisals now means that you have summarily removed the doctorates of Margaret Barker and Hugh Nibley?  Now facts are being attacked because they don't have credentials approved by you?  Bob Crockett, J.D.

[firepatch36]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

I think you meant to say Joseph instead of Nephi, but I like that symbolism a lot. I have never considered that before. 

Joseph was seeking for wisdom and found it in a grove of trees. That is pretty cool!

Whoops, I do mean Joseph. Can't see an edit button.

[firepatch36]

1 hour ago, Boanerges said:

Cherry trees don't blossom in this part of New York until mid to late May. I wouldn't call that "early in the spring."

I was going by memory of what was said on one of the podcasts. He was going through what could have been present. 

[firepatch36]

On the fountain of living waters and tree of life symbolism, I view them as having two meaning. One is that they both represent Christ. The other is that they both represent motherhood. I think it was Valerie Hudson who pointed out that the placenta and umbilical cord look like a tree. When a child is in the womb they are surrounded by fluid, which we call water (water breaks). 

The tree of life can have two meanings then - spiritual and physical. We are physically born from a tree of life surrounded by living waters in the womb. Spiritually we are born of Christ (tree of life) by his blood (living waters-sacrament water/wine symbolism). Christ said baptism was like being born again. Baptism by immersion is akin to being back in the womb by being completely surrounded by waters and then you come out reborn. 

I find the comparison's that Christ makes to himself that are maternal interesting. E.g. 3 Nephi 10:5 Christ compares himself to a mother hen gathering her chicks; Isaiah 49:15 compares himself to mother. This essay from Square Two makes a connection between priesthood and motherhood. I need to reread it and think about it more before I fully endorse it but I found it highly thought provoking. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, firepatch36 said:

Whoops, I do mean Joseph. Can't see an edit button.

25 posts will give it to you.