Robert F. Smith Posted February 26, 2020 Posted February 26, 2020 2 hours ago, Boanerges said: Absolutely, and he was writing/talking about it several years later, even in the earliest recorded account (1832). Recollection of specific times could be very fuzzy given those factors. (BTW, your link takes me to the account page but not to the specific post.) Sorry, they keep moving the URLs. Go now to https://ldsfocuschrist2.wordpress.com/?s=quinn
pogi Posted February 26, 2020 Posted February 26, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: This hardly seems like the type of esoteric issue that the Brethren themselves would feel has been resolved by revelation. In my experience, the Brethren seem perfectly open to allowing new advances in biblical scholarship to inform, enrich, and, yes, sometimes even clarify and refine our understanding of the scriptures. They allow the same thing to take place in our understanding of our own Church history. Any attempt to leverage what has been said in an institute manual or some other Church publication about esoteric research that most likely wasn't even known to the authors of those texts, seems misguided. Besides, I doubt much if anything in any Church manual pushes directly against what Peterson and others have written. I agree with your overall point very much. As to your last point however, I do think that all Church manual's push directly against Peterson's Nephi and his Asherah, and for good reason in my opinion. Edited February 26, 2020 by pogi
Ryan Dahle Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 (edited) 18 hours ago, pogi said: I agree with your overall point very much. As to your last point however, I do think that all Church manual's push directly against Peterson's Nephi and his Asherah, and for good reason in my opinion Do you have any examples of direct push back? I'm guessing the closest that one would find is simply a reaffirmation of the Bible's negative portrayal of Asherah worship. But, of course, Peterson's article treats the history of this worship at length, probably in far more depth than any Church publication ever has. In order to push back against his specific thesis, such publications would have to push back against the evidence he provides which suggests that at least something about the veneration of Asherah was at one point acceptable among orthodox Israelites. And that is about as far as his proposal goes. He never comes out and says that the later prophets were wrong in their condemnations of the specific forms of Asherah worship that was apparently rampant at the time. He only points to the fact that Israelite religion undeniably interacted with and was somewhat contextualized by surrounding religious cults which featured a feminine deity that took on different roles at different times (just as, I might add, Latter-day Saint beliefs and religious language are undeniably influenced by surrounding Christian beliefs and theological language, even though we typically re-appropriate that language and theology in new and distinctive ways) points to a lack of evidence for the condemnation of Asherah worship at certain periods of Israelite history (hinting that something about it may not have been entirely pernicious), and also points to the feminine aspects of wisdom literature that seem to correlate with Asherah worship and which were also likely a backdrop to the symbolism in Nephi's vision. That's about it. Peterson never comes out with some strong position about how Asherah worship was entirely acceptable in all forms everywhere. Thus, I think that it is entirely possible to accept the validity of the mostly later biblical condemnations of Asherah worship and simultaneously accept Peterson's thesis.That being the case, I hardly think that any Church publication will provide a meaningful critique or censure of Peterson's thesis. I remember as a kid that there was a pretty hard-line attitude about women and priesthood authority. Those were hardly ever ideas that were joined together. It was almost heretical to believe that women could access and exercise such authority. And, yet, recent teachings from Church leaders have helped clarify that all along women have been exercising priesthood authority in the Church. So which is it? Is it inappropriate (bordering on heretical) to give women priesthood authority, or isn't it? Well, the answer is both yes and no, depending on the nuances of what is meant by giving an individual priesthood authority. I suspect that similar nuance is at play in regard to the veneration of Asherah in pre-exilic Israel. Imagine what would happen if a group were to break off from the Church and propose that Heavenly Mother should be worshiped along with Heavenly father in basically equal fashion. And then imagine if this group were to become enormously enticing to mainline Latter-day Saints. I suspect you would get a big increase in the condemnation of Heavenly Mother worship by General Authorities. Over thousands of years, interrupted by cyclical apostasies, it would be easy for that sentiment to be the only surviving documentary evidence about the matter, and the fact that Latter-day Saints even once believed in a Heavenly Mother and that they honored and venerated the divine attributes of womanhood could easily get swallowed up or completely overlooked in the enduring anti-Heavenly-Mother rhetoric that was preserved and perpetuated. Latter-day Saints' awareness of the Great Apostasy and of other apostasies throughout history should leave us at least open to the idea that similar scenarios likely happened in the past. History in early times is so fragmentary that we should actually expect the nuances of theological controversies to get lost and muddled over time. Whether one accepts Peterson's thesis or not, it certainly isn't itself heretical and I have never seen anything in any Church publication that actually responds to the important nuances of what he is proposing. Edited February 27, 2020 by Ryan Dahle 2
pogi Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Do you have any examples of direct push back? I'm guessing the closest that one would find is simply a reaffirmation of the Bible's negative portrayal of Asherah worship. But, of course, Peterson's article treats the history of this worship at length, probably in far more depth than any Church publication ever has. In order to push back against his specific thesis, such publications would have to push back against the evidence he provides which suggests that at least something about the veneration of Asherah was at one point acceptable among orthodox Israelites. And that is about as far as his proposal goes. He never comes out and says that the later prophets were wrong in their condemnations of the specific forms of Asherah worship that was apparently rampant at the time. He only points to the fact that Israelite religion undeniably interacted with and was somewhat contextualized by surrounding religious cults which featured a feminine deity that took on different roles at different times (just as, I might add, Latter-day Saint beliefs and religious language are undeniably influenced by surrounding Christian beliefs and theological language, even though we typically re-appropriate that language and theology in new and distinctive ways) points to a lack of evidence for the condemnation of Asherah worship at certain periods of Israelite history (hinting that something about it may not have been entirely pernicious), and also points to the feminine aspects of wisdom literature that seem to correlate with Asherah worship and which were also likely a backdrop to the symbolism in Nephi's vision. That's about it. Peterson never comes out with some strong position about how Asherah worship was entirely acceptable in all forms everywhere. Thus, I think that it is entirely possible to accept the validity of the mostly later biblical condemnations of Asherah worship and simultaneously accept Peterson's thesis.That being the case, I hardly think that any Church publication will provide a meaningful critique or censure of Peterson's thesis. I remember as a kid that there was a pretty hard-line attitude about women and priesthood authority. Those were hardly ever ideas that were joined together. It was almost heretical to believe that women could access and exercise such authority. And, yet, recent teachings from Church leaders have helped clarify that all along women have been exercising priesthood authority in the Church. So which is it? Is it inappropriate (bordering on heretical) to give women priesthood authority, or isn't it? Well, the answer is both yes and no, depending on the nuances of what is meant by giving an individual priesthood authority. I suspect that similar nuance is at play in regard to the veneration of Asherah in pre-exilic Israel. Imagine what would happen if a group were to break off from the Church and propose that Heavenly Mother should be worshiped along with Heavenly father in basically equal fashion. And then imagine if this group were to become enormously enticing to mainline Latter-day Saints. I suspect you would get a big increase in the condemnation of Heavenly Mother worship by General Authorities. Over thousands of years, interrupted by cyclical apostasies, it would be easy for that sentiment to be the only surviving documentary evidence about the matter, and the fact that Latter-day Saints even once believed in a Heavenly Mother and that they honored and venerated the divine attributes of womanhood could easily get swallowed up or completely overlooked in the enduring anti-Heavenly-Mother rhetoric that was preserved and perpetuated. Latter-day Saints' awareness of the Great Apostasy and of other apostasies throughout history should leave us at least open to the idea that similar scenarios likely happened in the past. History in early times is so fragmentary that we should actually expect the nuances of theological controversies to get lost and muddled over time. Whether one accepts Peterson's thesis or not, it certainly isn't itself heretical and I have never seen anything in any Church publication that actually responds to the important nuances of what he is proposing. I have no problem with Asherah, per se, or the research being done with her, and how that might play into LDS theology. My problem with Peterson's thesis is not about veneration or condemnation of Asherah. My problem is his association of Nephi's vision in particular, with Asherah. Not that church manuals necessarily constitute doctrine or the last word on a subject, but you asked where they push against Peterson's thesis. Here is one example of where this is seen: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-3?lang=eng The tree has always been taught in official church manuals to represent Jesus Christ, the fruit representing the love of God. I think that Peterson is restricting context and narrative. He says that the vision of Mary is "otherwise unexplained". That simply is not true. The Spirit clearly introduced the vision and context of the vision by suggesting that Nephi would see the Son of God descending from heaven and that the condescension of God would be seen in the vision. That is the context of Mary. Her role in the vision was perfectly explained. If you see my 6th post on page one of this thread, I go into detail about the context of the vision. To see Asherah as the intended object that the Spirit was trying to portray to Nephi feels shoe-horned and constrained to me. It is beyond evident, given the context, that Nephi came to understand that it represented the love of God for man after witnessing the condescension of God. These two verses really say it all: Quote 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. 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? Was the attention of the vision centered around Mary or Jesus Christ? What was the Spirit showing Nephi? "Behold Mary", or Behold the Lamb of God"? Christ is the "sign" of the tree. I generally like Daniel Peterson's work, but in this particular case I think his essay feels like a contrived effort to authenticate the Book of Mormon by restricting the narrative and actually going against what the church teaches: Quote The inclusion in 1 Nephi of two authentically preexilic religious symbols (Asherah and Wisdom) that could scarcely have been derived by the New York farmboy Joseph Smith from the Bible strongly suggests that the Book of Mormon is, indeed, an ancient historical record in the Semitic tradition. That is his intended purpose with this essay. Edited February 27, 2020 by pogi
Ryan Dahle Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 13 minutes ago, pogi said: To see Asherah as the intended object that the Spirit was trying to portray to Nephi feels shoe-horned and constrained to me. It is beyond evident, given the context, that Nephi came to understand that it represented the love of God for man after witnessing the condescension of God. I think you are simply misreading Peterson on several levels. For instance, note how he himself describes the connection between the Tree and Asherah in contrast to your characterization of his view: Quote "Of course, Mary, the virgin girl of Nazareth seen by Nephi, was not literally Asherah. She was, as Nephi’s guide carefully stressed, simply “the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.”58 But she was the perfect mortal typification of the mother of the Son of God. 2
pogi Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: I think you are simply misreading Peterson on several levels. For instance, note how he himself describes the connection between the Tree and Asherah in contrast to your characterization of his view: I wasn't trying to imply that Peterson was making a literal link between Mary and Ashera. He was using Mary as "the perfect mortal typification of the mother of the Son of God." He suggests that Mary typified Asherah, causing Nephi to understand the meaning of the tree. There are several problems with that. For one, it implies that Nephi perceived Asherah as the Heavenly Mother of Jehovah (Mary being typified as the mortal mother), causing him to see and understand the typification in Mary. However, cultural perspectives in Nephi's time would have seen Asherah as the consort of Jehovah, not his mother. The second problem, is that Peterson is leaving out the context of the vision of Mary. The Spirit was showing Nephi the condescension of Jesus Christ. "Behold, the Lamb of God". I don't think I am misunderstanding Peterson in his suggestion that Asherah is the intended meaning of the tree. That is what I disagree with. Edited February 27, 2020 by pogi
Ryan Dahle Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, pogi said: I wasn't trying to imply that Peterson was making a literal link between Mary and Ashera. He was using Mary as "the perfect mortal typification of the mother of the Son of God." He suggests that Mary typified Asherah, causing Nephi to understand the meaning of the tree. There are several problems with that. For one, it implies that Nephi perceived Asherah as the Heavenly Mother of Jehovah, causing him to see and understand the typification in Mary. However, cultural perspectives in Nephi's time would have seen Asherah as the consort of Jehovah, not his mother. Peterson seems to fully recognize and understand the issue that seems contradictory to you. He writes Quote What was Asherah’s role in early Israelite religious belief? Given what we have already said about the history of Canaanite and Israelite religion, “Asherah may have been the consort of El, but not [of] Yahweh, at some early point in Israelite religion.”29 Over the generations, however, the Israelites’ concept of Yahweh absorbed the attributes of Yahweh’s father, El, and the people’s imagination seems also to have granted to Yahweh the wife and consort of his father. I think the problem is that Peterson isn't limiting the concept of Asherah to the narrow definition of her being the wife of Yahweh, as you seem to imply. It seems, rather, that in Peterson's view, Asherah is a broader more general concept of a holy or divine mother figure, and he is simply charting the trajectory of this concept through Israelite history. It could very well be, for example, that Nephi's vision restored for him a more accurate understanding of the role of the mother of Christ (the god of Israel)--one that was better reflected in earlier times than in his own day. Edited February 27, 2020 by Ryan Dahle 1
pogi Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: It could very well be, for example, that Nephi's vision restored for him a more accurate understanding of the role of the mother of Christ (the god of Israel)--one that was better reflected in earlier times than in his own day. That is what feels contrived to me. To say that Mary was "the perfect mortal typification of the mother of the Son of God" for Nephi, could only be true if we disregard the cultural perceptions of Ashera in the time of Nephi. We then have to suggest that the vision of Mary somehow triggered a mystical understanding of Ashera's true identity as the mother of Yahweh instead of his consort, as Nephi would have likely perceive her. It does not seem like the "perfect mortal typification of the mother of the Son of God" to me, unless you disassociate Nephi with that time period and place him in more ancient times. The only thing that Asherah and Mary would have had in common to Nephi, is that they were both mothers. That to me is a clear case of apophenia given the broader context of the chapter, which Peterson does not address in his essay. Edited February 27, 2020 by pogi
Ryan Dahle Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 1 hour ago, pogi said: hat is what feels contrived to me. To say that Mary was "the perfect mortal typification of the mother of the Son of God" for Nephi, could only be true if we disregard the cultural perceptions of Ashera in the time of Nephi. We then have to suggest that the vision of Mary somehow triggered a mystical understanding of Ashera's true identity as the mother of Yahweh instead of his consort, as Nephi would have likely perceive her. It does not seem like the "perfect mortal typification of the mother of the Son of God" to me, unless you disassociate Nephi with that time period and place him in more ancient times. The only thing that Asherah and Mary would have had in common to Nephi, is that they were both mothers. That to me is a clear case of apophenia given the broader context of the chapter, which Peterson does not address in his essay. Except, as Peterson points out at length, there is reason to believe that the Bible itself doesn't preserve a full understanding of what Asherah may have meant to Nephi or the people of his day. Peterson's whole point is that there are lots of clues suggesting that the concept of Asherah was likely broader and in some contexts much more theologically orthodox than the later biblical texts alone would lead us to believe. I'm guessing Nephi's vision immediately brought to his mind and somewhat resolved the longstanding controversy over the motherly, life-giving, tree-related Asherah figure that in some way was associated with God himself or God's son, just as Joseph Smith's First Vision surely brought to his mind and somewhat clarified the long-standing controversy over the Trinity. I imagine the light going on and Nephi saying to himself, "Ahh, so this is what the mother figure is all about that is associated with Yahweh. Many of my people have misunderstood this relationship." 2
pogi Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 19 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Peterson's whole point is that there are lots of clues suggesting that the concept of Asherah was likely broader and in some contexts much more theologically orthodox than the later biblical texts alone would lead us to believe. Peterson has given absolutely no evidence in his essay that Asherah was perceived as the consort of El, mother of Yawheh, or that there was any controversy as to who's wife she was in the time of Jeremiah/Nephi among the Israelites. In fact, the only controversy surrounding Asherah in that time was whether or not she was a false God/idol. He does supply plenty of evidence however that she was perceived as the consot of Yahweh in that time period. Peterson suggests: Quote So visible was Asherah still in this period just prior to the Babylonian captivity that Lehi’s contemporary, the prophet Jeremiah, felt obliged to denounce her worship. Peterson suggests that her denouncing implies that her worship was prominent in that time. That is extremely unlikely and not supported by any evidence. If anything, it suggests that she was on her way out and Jeremiah was putting the final nail in the coffin. On one hand Peterson suggests that Asherah worship was prominent in that time, but on the other hand he acknowledges that by 586 B.C. (only 14 years after Nephi departed) "Asherah was basically eliminated from the history of Israel and subsequent Judaism." So which is it? All evidence suggests that the dominant view of Asherah in the time of Nephi (including among the leadership and prophets) is that she was an evil idol. The few that continued to worship her viewed her as the consort of Yahweh. She was not perceived as the Heavenly Mother of all mankind. If she was not perceived as the Heavenly Mother of all mankind (and nothing in Nephi's vision would have taught him or suggested that), why would Nephi associate Ashera with the love of God for man? It seems wrong to think that Nephi would have identified Asherah, whom he would not likely have perceive as his Heavenly Mother, as the ultimate telos of obedience to the word of God. 19 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: I'm guessing Nephi's vision immediately brought to his mind and somewhat resolved the longstanding controversy over the motherly, life-giving, tree-related Asherah figure that in some way was associated with God himself or God's son... There simply was no evidence of controversy that she was the mother of Yahweh in Nephi's time. There is no evidence whatsoever that she was perceived as the "life-giving" mother of all mankind, and certainly not that there was any controversy over it. But to suggest that she was the primary sign of the tree, and that Christ was somehow secondary figure/meaning to Asherah in the vision is a huge, huge, huge, mistake in my mind. Nephi's vision is the blueprint for the entire Book of Mormon, which places Christ in the center. He is the focal point. He is built up as the ultimate telos on our journey. He is both the way (rod of iron), and the life (tree of life) - John 14:6 Peterson suggests that: Quote Nephi’s vision goes even further, identifying Mary with the tree. Where does it do that? Read the vision. Peterson suggests that Mary's appearance in the vision is without explanation and out of place unless she was the intended meaning of the tree. Sorry to be blunt, but that is nonsense. First, the Spirit introduces the vision by suggesting that after seeing the tree, Nephi would see the Son of God descend out of heaven as a "sign" to understand the vision. As if that wasn't enough, lets continue reading. Here is where Nephi first sees Mary in vision (after having been given her context): Quote 14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens 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 condescension of God? Notice how the Spirit immediately directs Nephi's attention away from Mary and back to Christ. He reinforces the context of Mary and her secondary role in this vision - "knowest thou the condescension of God?" There are only a few verses about Mary in the vision but there are several chapters about Christ in the vision. Is there really any question here? It was in seeing and understanding the condescension of God that allowed Nephi to identify the meaning of the tree and the love of God for man. See: Quote God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten. (John 3:16.) Quote In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. (1 John 4: 9-12) Quote And the great and wonderful love made manifest by the Father and the Son in the coming of the Redeemer into the world; That through his atonement, and by obedience to the principles of the gospel, mankind might be saved. (D&C 138:3,4) Quote 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? (1 Nephi 11:21) That was Nephi's vision! To distract us from that is a mistake. That is where the Spirit of the Lord directed Nephi's attention to help him comprehend the tree. Why did Peterson not address this? Why did he not talk about the sign of the tree mentioned in verse 7? He is literally ignoring the voice and narrative of the Spirit of the Lord and trying to interpret the vision himself without the guidance and help of the narrative of the Spirit of the Lord. It is based on his limited understanding of ancient peoples, when the Spirit's voice and direction is clear as day. I think Peterson is well intentioned, but in his efforts of proving the Book of Mormon's authenticity as an ancient record, he is looking beyond the mark (or "sign" mentioned in verse 7 of 1 Nephi 11) that the book's primary purpose is to serve as another testament of Jesus Christ. Nephi's vision is one of the highlights of the Book of Mormon in serving that purpose. The fact that an old testament prophet witnessed the condescension of God, the birth, life, and ministry of the savior 600 years before his birth is what this is all about. Christ is the life (tree of life). He is the center piece. Everything else in the Book of Mormon is secondary to that telos. Quote That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. (Ephesians 3:17-19) Do you see Nephi's vision in those verses with the path of faith which leads towards the imagery of a tree in describing Christ's love as the ultimate telos and fullness of God? This is what Nephi saw. Edited February 28, 2020 by pogi
Ryan Dahle Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 14 minutes ago, pogi said: Peterson has given absolutely no evidence in his essay that Asherah was perceived as the consort of El, mother of Yawheh, or that there was any controversy as to who's wife she was in the time of Jeremiah/Nephi. In fact, the only controversy surrounding Asherah in that time was whether or not she was a false God/idol. He does supply plenty of evidence however that she was perceived as the consot of Yahweh in that time period. Peterson suggests: Peterson suggests that her denouncing implies that her worship was prominent in that time. That is extremely unlikely and not supported by any evidence. If anything, it suggests that she was on her way out and Jeremiah was putting the final nail in the coffin. On one hand Peterson suggests that Asherah worship was prominent in that time, but on the other hand he acknowledges that by 586 B.C. (only 14 years after Nephi departed) "Asherah was basically eliminated from the history of Israel and subsequent Judaism." So which is it? Is it possible that she could have fallen from such great prominence, having been worshiped from nearly the beginning of time, to being "eliminated from history of Israel" in a matter of 14 years. No way! All evidence suggests that the dominant view of Asherah in the time of Nephi (especially within the leadership) is that she was an evil idol. The few that continued to worship her viewed her as the consort of Yahweh - nor was she perceived as the heavenly mother of all mankind. If she was not perceived as the heavenly mother of all mankind (and nothing in Nephi's vision would have taught him that), why would Nephi associate Ashera with the love of God for man? There simply was no evidence of controversy that she was the mother of Yahweh in Nephi's time. There is no absolutely evidence whatsoever that she was perceived as the life-giving mother of all mankind, and certainly not that there was any controversy over it. But to suggest that she was the primary sign of the tree and that Christ was somehow secondary figure/meaning to Asherah in the vision is a huge, huge, huge, mistake in my mind. Nephi's vision is the blueprint for the entire Book of Mormon, which places Christ in the center. He is the focal point. He is built up as the ultimate telos on our journey. He is both the way (rod of iron), and the life (tree of life). It seems wrong to think that Nephi would have identified Asherah, whom he would not likely have perceive as his Heavenly Mother, as the ultimate telos of obedience to the word of God. Peterson suggests that: Where does it do that? Read the vision. Peterson suggests that Mary's appearance in the vision is without explanation and out of place unless she was the intended meaning of the tree. Sorry to be blunt, but that is nonsense. First, the Spirit introduces the vision by suggesting that after seeing the tree, Nephi would see the Son of God descend out of heaven as a "sign" to understand the vision. Here is where Nephi first sees Mary in vision (after having been given her context): Notice how the Spirit immediately directs Nephi's attention away from Mary and back to Christ. He reminds Nephi of the context of Mary and her role in this vision - "knowest thou the condescension of God?" In that understanding was made manifest to Nephi the meaning of the tree and the love of God for man. See: That was Nephi's vision! To distract us from that is a mistake. That is where the Spirit of the Lord directed Nephi's attention to help him comprehend the tree. Why did Peterson not address this? Why did he not talk about the sign of the tree mentioned in verse 7? He is literally ignoring the voice and narrative of the Spirit of the Lord and trying to interpret the vision himself based on his limited understanding of ancient peoples, when the Spirit's voice and direction is clear as day. I think Peterson is well intentioned, but in his efforts of proving the Book of Mormon's authenticity as an ancient record, he is looking beyond the mark (or "sign" mentioned in verse 7 of 1 Nephi 11) that the book's primary purpose is to serve as another testament of Jesus Christ. Nephi's vision is one of the highlights of the Book of Mormon in serving that purpose. The fact that an old testament prophet witnessed the condescension of God, the birth, life, and ministry of the savior 600 years before his birth is what this is all about. Christ is the life (tree of life). He is the center piece. Everything else in the Book of Mormon is secondary to that telos. Do you see Nephi's vision in those verses with the path of faith which leads towards the imagery of a tree in describing Christ's love as the ultimate telos and fullness of God? This is what Nephi saw. Well, I appreciate your views on this, and I certainly appreciate that you value Christ being the center of Nephi's vision (a position with which I, and I'm sure Peterson, would actually agree). I don't see the Tree as a static symbol, so it can be more than one thing at once, in my view. I think in most of your statements above, I disagree with the nuances of how you've characterized Peterson's position and that you are also not addressing the full argument he is making. But he would probably be better able to speak for himself about exactly what he thinks. I don't have time to go much deeper into the analysis at the moment, and I doubt that we would see eye to eye even if I did. But it has been a good discussion. Thanks for your thoughts. 2
mfbukowski Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 22 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: I think you are simply misreading Peterson on several levels. For instance, note how he himself describes the connection between the Tree and Asherah in contrast to your characterization of his view: Quote "Of course, Mary, the virgin girl of Nazareth seen by Nephi, was not literally Asherah. She was, as Nephi’s guide carefully stressed, simply “the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.”58 But she was the perfect mortal typification of the mother of the Son of God. Yet another example of the continuing error of seeing the world as if there IS some way of knowing what is "real" and what is "just perception" and interpretation. There never IS a pragmatic difference. Sigh. The colored glasses never come off it seems, and most don't even know they are wearing them. All we EVER know is the story we humans have constructed. Why that is not totally obvious to everyone continues to be a mystery to me. Edited February 28, 2020 by mfbukowski
pogi Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yet another example of the continuing error of seeing the world as if there IS some way of knowing what is "real" and what is "just perception" and interpretation. There never IS a pragmatic difference. Sigh. The colored glasses never come off it seems, and most don't even know they are wearing them. All we EVER know is the story we humans have constructed. Why that is not totally obvious to everyone continues to be a mystery to me. I am confused at your comment and wondering who it is directed at, me or Peterson (and those who support his interpretation)? We are both playing the same game with different conclusions. I think you know that I agree that everything is interpretation, but I think you would agree that there can be better interpretations than others. For example, if someone is limiting the context, then that interpretation is based on incomplete and limited perspective. The Spirit in 1 Nephi 11 acts as a guide for Nephi in understanding the meaning of the tree of life. For someone to interpret the vision without addressing the guidance and narrative of the Spirit, then they are like a blind guide. Can they find personal meaning in it for themselves without the guidance of the spirit? Sure. Is it likely going to be what the spirit intended for them to get from the vision? Probably not. Read Nephi's vision and the narrative of the spirit, then read Peterson's essay. You will find that Peterson completely ignores the direction and narrative of the spirit and thus limits his perspective in his interpretation. He doesn't even address it. If the holy spirit says to me "this is the sign", then I listen. Edited February 28, 2020 by pogi
pogi Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Well, I appreciate your views on this, and I certainly appreciate that you value Christ being the center of Nephi's vision (a position with which I, and I'm sure Peterson, would actually agree). I don't see the Tree as a static symbol, so it can be more than one thing at once, in my view. I think in most of your statements above, I disagree with the nuances of how you've characterized Peterson's position and that you are also not addressing the full argument he is making. But he would probably be better able to speak for himself about exactly what he thinks. I don't have time to go much deeper into the analysis at the moment, and I doubt that we would see eye to eye even if I did. But it has been a good discussion. Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that symbols can have several meanings. The question for me is, where was the Spirit directing Nephi's attention to help him understand the tree in his vision? Peterson completely leaves out the context and narrative of the Spirit (who is acting as Nephi's guide in identifying the "sign") in his evaluation and assessment of the vision. That is the biggest stumbling block for me in his essay. He is limiting the context of the vision. Thanks for your thoughts too, and agree that it has been a good discussion. Edited February 28, 2020 by pogi
Ryan Dahle Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 40 minutes ago, pogi said: I agree that symbols can have several meanings. The question for me is, where was the Spirit directing Nephi's attention to help him understand the tree in his vision? Peterson completely leaves out the context and narrative of the Spirit (who is acting as Nephi's guide in identifying the "sign") in his evaluation and assessment of the vision. That is the biggest stumbling block for me in his essay. He is limiting the context of the vision. I don't have time to get into the historical discussion about how Asherah was most likely perceived in Nephi's day. But I do have a more straightforward (less time-consuming) question about your interpretation. Do you at least concede that there seems to be a fairly direct relationship between the Tree of Life and Mary in Nephi's account?
pogi Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: I don't have time to get into the historical discussion about how Asherah was most likely perceived in Nephi's day. But I do have a more straightforward (less time-consuming) question about your interpretation. Do you at least concede that there seems to be a fairly direct relationship between the Tree of Life and Mary in Nephi's account? The narration of the Spirit leads me to see Mary in a more indirect and secondary relationship in the condescension of God - which the Spirit was showing Nephi. There definitely are some similarities in the description of their appearance - most beautiful and fair/white. However, I also see those descriptors of Christ in scripture. In fact, the two places that I know of in scripture that compares the whiteness of something to "snow" is in relation to the tree of life and also in relation to Jesus Christ in Revelations 1:14-16. Nephi didn't just describe the tree as beautiful and white, but "precious above all". I see that as a more direct descriptor of Christ than Mary. When you add in the "living waters" it becomes clear that this is about Christ, with Mary in a supporting role in the condescension of God. I definitely see a relationship there, but to me it is more indirect than direct. Edited February 28, 2020 by pogi
Ryan Dahle Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, pogi said: The narration of he Spirit leads me to see Mary in a more indirect and secondary relationship in the condescension of God - which the Spirit was showing Nephi. I see Mary more as the fertile soil which bore the seed for the tree. There definitely are some similarities in the description of their appearance - most beautiful and fair/white. I also see those descriptors of Christ in scripture. In fact, the only two places that I know of in scripture that compares the whiteness of something to "snow" is in relation to the tree of life and also in relation to Jesus Christ in Revelations 1:14-16. Nephi didn't just describe the tree as beautiful and white, but "precious above all". I see that as a more direct descriptor of Christ than Mary. I definitely see a relationship there, but to me it is more indirect than direct. Well, I certainly agree with you that the imagery definitely is about Christ. Here is an unpublished excerpt from some research I am doing for Book of Mormon Central: Later on in the Book of Mormon, the imagery from Lehi’s vision (fruit = white) and Alma’s sermon (fruit = light/white) are symbolically realized in the figure of Jesus Christ, who introduced Himself to the Nephites as the “light and the life of the world” (3 Nephi 11:11). In 3 Nephi 19:25 it is reported that the “light of [Jesus’] countenance did shine upon [his disciples], and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof” (emphasis added). As shown in the following chart, this language clearly harkens back to statements about the fruit of the Tree of Life from Lehi, Nephi, and Alma: 1 Nephi 8:11 1 Nephi 11:8 Alma 32 3 Nephi 19:25 And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen. And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow. 35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect? 42 … behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof. So I certainly agree that the Tree, and especially its fuit, is meant to symbolize Jesus. But I see Mary as being a very big (not just incidental) part of this vision, and that the Tree is definitely a manifestation of her identity as well. First of all, after Nephi asks to know the meaning of the Tree, he is shown Mary before he is shown Jesus. This portion of the vision starts out giving Nephi a spatial context (the region of Jerusalem and then it narrows it down to Nazareth), and then immediately focuses in on Mary. It then spends several verses on Mary and her role in Christ's condescension, even zooming up to her "bearing a child in her arms" (somewhat similar to Nephi's language of "the tree which bore the fruit" in 1 Nephi 11:7). Then, when asked if he now knows the meaning of the tree, Nephi says: "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." It seems more than a coincidence that these words ("love" and "desire") are also the likely meanings behind Mary's name. According to Matthew Bowen: Quote Just as Nephi’s recognition and identification of the “rod of iron” as the “word of God” turns on (or hinges upon) the polysemy of Egyptian mdw (“rod,” “staff”; “word,” “speak”),36 Nephi’s recognition and identification of the “love of God” as the “most desirable above all things” turns on the polysemy of mry (“love,” “desire,” “wish”). It is worth noting here that though Benjamin and Alma mention Mary by name, Nephi offers the most dramatic, detailed, and developed description of Mary in the Book of Mormon text. Does it not seem strange then that Nephi would leave her name unmentioned, assuming he knew it? Where is her name? I propose that it is present, literally or implicitly, in Nephi’s report in the polysemic play on “love” and “desire.” In other words, if the terms “love” and “desire” appear in Egyptian language on the plates, both words would almost certainly be written as forms of mr(i), thus literally placing her name in the text (like the placing of “Saul” [“asked”/“demanded”] in the verb *šʾl “ask,” “request,” “demand” in 1 Samuel 8:10; 12:13, 17 and elsewhere). Even the use of the Hebrew equivalents of the terms “love” and “desire” would cognitively revolve around the appearance of “the mother of God” in Nephi’s text. Thus in either scenario, Nephi’s consciousness of Mary’s name and its meaning plausibly explains and motivates the dramatic emphasis on the “love of God” in 1 Nephi 11 and his understanding of the overall meaning of the tree-of-life vision. In 1 Nephi 11, the wordplay obviates the need for Nephi to mention her name in the way that Benjamin and Alma later mention it. As if for emphasis, Nephi iterates in 1 Nephi 11:25 that the “living waters [Heb. mayyîm ḥayyîm37] … are a representation of the love of God; and … that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.” Again the emphasis here is not only the “rod” (the word of God), but the “love of God”: the “mother of God,” Mary, was a representation the “love of God” (cf. Egyptian mry[.t]–nṯr, “[be]loved of god”).38 Water, of course, is a powerful symbol both of birth39 and rebirth,40 and thus baptism. It is at least noteworthy that Jesus describes the greatness or manifestation of the “love” of God in his own incarnation (“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,” John 3:16) in the context of the necessity of baptism — being “born again” or “born from above” (gennēthēnai anōthen, see John 3:3-8) in his likeness. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/most-desirable-above-all-things-onomastic-play-on-mary-and-mormon-in-the-book-of-mormon/#sdfootnote30anc I recommend reading Bowen's entire article for the full context of his statements, but it is pretty hard for me not to see that Nephi is playing off of the Egyptian meaning behind Mary's name, and the only place he does this with both words is in his description of the meaning of the tree of life (1 Nephi 11:22). You wrote: 2 hours ago, pogi said: Nephi didn't just describe the tree as beautiful and white, but "precious above all". I see that as a more direct descriptor of Christ than Mary. Except, this superlative language, including the word "precious," is also used to describe Mary. Look at the following chart of relationships (with words that stand behind Mary's name highlighted in orange ) : Mary Tree of Life 1 Nephi 11:13 And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white. 1 Nephi 8:11 Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen. 1 Nephi 11:8 the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow. 1 Nephi 11:15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins. 1 Nephi 8:12 I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit. 1 Nephi 8:15 I also did say unto them with a loud voice that they should come unto me, and partake of the fruit, which was desirable above all other fruit. 1 Nephi 11:22 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. Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. 1 Nephi 11:9 I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all. Alma 32:42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; I think that Mary's relationship to the Tree and its fruit is both linguistically and textually strong. The tree wouldn't be that special if it didn't bear such beautiful and delicious and joyous fruit. Likewise, Mary wouldn't be particularly special except for the fact that she bore the son of God. She is, in effect, an important part of the imagery of Christ's mortal identity. A huge aspect of his Atonement was that he came down among men in the flesh and suffered in the flesh. See 1 Nephi 11:18: "And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." Alma seems to have picked up on this. Right after describing Christ's birth to Mary and her status as a "precious and chosen vessel" (Alma 7:10), Alma explains that Christ "shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people" (Alma 7:11). Alma further explains, "... and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities. Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people" (Alma 7:12-13). In other words, Mary isn't just a side symbol in Nephi's vision. She isn't just a segue to the Christ child. She plays a very crucial role in establishing the mortal aspect of his identity, the part that makes it possible for him to perform the Atonement in the flesh--which is arguably the ultimate manifestation of His own and His father's love. She is almost undoubtedly part of what is symbolized by the Tree in Nephi's vision. At least that's my take on it. Edited February 29, 2020 by Ryan Dahle 2
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, pogi said: I am confused at your comment and wondering who it is directed at, me or Peterson (and those who support his interpretation)? We are both playing the same game with different conclusions. I think you know that I agree that everything is interpretation, but I think you would agree that there can be better interpretations than others. For example, if someone is limiting the context, then that interpretation is based on incomplete and limited perspective. The Spirit in 1 Nephi 11 acts as a guide for Nephi in understanding the meaning of the tree of life. For someone to interpret the vision without addressing the guidance and narrative of the Spirit, then they are like a blind guide. Can they find personal meaning in it for themselves without the guidance of the spirit? Sure. Is it likely going to be what the spirit intended for them to get from the vision? Probably not. Read Nephi's vision and the narrative of the spirit, then read Peterson's essay. You will find that Peterson completely ignores the direction and narrative of the spirit and thus limits his perspective in his interpretation. He doesn't even address it. If the holy spirit says to me "this is the sign", then I listen. Well going back and thinking about it a bit, it was not really directed toward either of you, because re-reading it - what Peterson said was actually right on the money. It was the phraseology that bugged me. Quote "Of course, Mary, the virgin girl of Nazareth seen by Nephi, was not literally Asherah. She was, as Nephi’s guide carefully stressed, simply “the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.”58 But she was the perfect mortal typification of the mother of the Son of God. I was objecting to the notion that there could or could not be a "literal Asherah" which was seen by Nephi- because there is no historical evidence or any way of saying something "literally true" about EITHER Asherah OR Nephi- but in fact the quote says that it was NOT literally "Asherah", but the "perfect mortal typification of the mother of the Son of God." The very quote was affirming the "myth"- used in the sense of a story which is useful to illustrate or carry forward a valuable idea we believe without objective evidence, or take on faith. That people have "inalienable rights" is perhaps such a myth. We take it, as other moral assertions, on faith, based pragmatically on ideas which give humans purpose and meaning in life. So it is a complex quote. The historical existence of "Mary" as the existence of "Nephi", are themselves myths to be taken on faith. I personally think of them as having actually existed, but for many years of my life I found it totally unnecessary to think of them as "real" and still maintain my moral paradigms as "myths'. What I think is so strong about this way of seeing it, is that it strips away the whole need for the question of historical evidence and makes that evidence optional, and therefore preserves religion in its rightful place with science as a profound human enterprise answering entirely questions than science, but perhaps these answers are actually more IMPORTANT than science. But getting back to the question at hand, it seems to me that the existence of Asherah takes it another deeper level into the "myth" zone when we are talking about her "literal existence". So what caught my eye was the assertion that a mythic Mary being seen by a mythic Nephi, as she "saw a literal" even MORE mythic character named "Asherah" as a little shaky. But in reflection I agree with Dr Peterson that what was seen was a "mortal typification" Someone- Ryan?- brought up CS Lewis and Tolkien- here is a wonderful wonderful video that sees the world as I see it myself. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/evangelical-history/85-years-ago-today-j-r-r-tolkien-convinces-c-s-lewis-that-christ-is-the-true-myth/ Edited February 29, 2020 by mfbukowski
pogi Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 On 2/28/2020 at 4:49 PM, Ryan Dahle said: In other words, Mary isn't just a side symbol in Nephi's vision. She isn't just a segue to the Christ child. She plays a very crucial role in establishing the mortal aspect of his identity, the part that makes it possible for him to perform the Atonement in the flesh--which is arguably the ultimate manifestation of His own and His father's love. She is almost undoubtedly part of what is symbolized by the Tree in Nephi's vision. At least that's my take on it. Thanks for sharing your research, it's pretty interesting. I can agree that she may be part of what is symbolized in the tree. I agree that she makes it possible for Christ to perform the atonement, but that to me will always be seen as an integral and critical, yet secondary role - a necessary "segue" to the Christ child. In every point of the vision (even when Nephi first saw Mary), the spirit was re-directing Nephi's attention back to the Savior. Given the narration of the spirit in identifying Christ as the "sign", and given the ultimate symbol of the tree as the crowning experience and telos of our journey on earth, I just can't get myself to see Mary on a co-equal level in this vision. Thanks for your sharing your take on it. I appreciate your perspective. 1
Islander Posted March 11, 2020 Posted March 11, 2020 On 2/25/2020 at 6:57 PM, firepatch36 said: 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. Scripture is not subject to individual interpretation. It means what God intended to mean even if you had not existed. The claims of the Latterday Saints are exclusive and LDS theology stands on revealed truth, not based on academic research or any other form of scholarship. Scholarship does not and will not replace revelation and authority. At times, scholarship sheds light into already revealed truth and helps us gain additional intellectual and spiritual insight on a particular subject. The passage in questions is an allegory, like others in the NT but it can not be stretched to the point where people begin to see things that are not there. Agricultural allegories are plenty in the scriptures but such literary devices had a very specific meaning to the people to whom they were given (by God or the Savior Himself) and we can not inject our own interpretation or individual exegesis into the text. That is a colossal error. Nephi describes, specifically, what the vision means. That is also what the official teaching manuals of the church present to us in terms of doctrine: When Nephi was shown the tree of life, he asked to know its interpretation (1 Nephi 11:8–11). What did he learn that the tree represents? (See 1 Nephi 11:21–25.) What did Nephi see that helped him better understand God’s love? (See 1 Nephi 11:13–21, 24, 26–33. He saw the birth, ministry, and Atonement of Jesus Christ.) [Teacher's Manual, Lesson 3] To go beyond that is pure speculation and theologically unsound. The OT is full of episodes where the Lord, God of Israel, condemned the cult of Ashera. These are just a few: 1 Kings 18:19 , 2 Kings 23:7 , Deuteronomy 16:21 , 2 Kings 23:6 , Exodus 34:13 , 2 Kings 23:1-37 , Judges 3:7 , 2 Chronicles 15:16 , 2 Kings 23:4
Calm Posted March 11, 2020 Posted March 11, 2020 25 minutes ago, Islander said: Scripture is not subject to individual interpretation. It means what God intended to mean even if you had not existed. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1974/09/likening-the-scriptures-unto-ourselves?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2000/08/likening-the-scriptures-unto-ourselves?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2009/03/likening-the-scriptures-to-our-personal-lives?lang=eng 1
Islander Posted March 11, 2020 Posted March 11, 2020 10 hours ago, Calm said: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1974/09/likening-the-scriptures-unto-ourselves?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2000/08/likening-the-scriptures-unto-ourselves?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2009/03/likening-the-scriptures-to-our-personal-lives?lang=eng The references you provided relates to life application. We are encouraged to do that. Which means that we are to search the scriptures to find, with the help of the Spirit, how does the scripture or situation described in them applies or finds symmetry to our lives. We are to seek in what way our life predicament, feelings and circumstances mirror those in the text and follow godly examples and imitate the actions of the heroes of the faith. Which is completely different from finding an "interpretation" in the text that is far and away from what God intended in the first place (e.g seeing a reference to a pagan godess in the tree of life). That was the point I was trying to make.
Bob Crockett Posted March 11, 2020 Posted March 11, 2020 (edited) On 3/10/2020 at 10:15 PM, Islander said: The OT is full of episodes where the Lord, God of Israel, condemned the cult of Ashera. These are just a few: 1 Kings 18:19 , 2 Kings 23:7 , Deuteronomy 16:21 , 2 Kings 23:6 , Exodus 34:13 , 2 Kings 23:1-37 , Judges 3:7 , 2 Chronicles 15:16 , 2 Kings 23:4 As Dr. Peterson explained in Peterson, Daniel "P.T. Barnum Redivivus," Farms Review of Books vol 7 No. 2 (1995), "'Asherah [is] the name of Baal's consort." William Dever's feminist trope "Did God Have a Wife" did not come out until 2005, but scholars have been saying since the 1970s that Canaanite excavations were yielding Asherah figurines (nasty, filthy things glorifying aberrant sex) were being found in Israelite homes and thus Israelites worshipped Asherah and thus the OT narrative is incorrect. Leading thusly to Dever's work and the absurdities of Margaret Barker's conclusions about the Josian reform, which some BYU professors have apparently consumed with glee. Edited March 12, 2020 by Bob Crockett
Bob Crockett Posted March 17, 2020 Posted March 17, 2020 I also note that that the late Dr. Bill Hambln disagreed with Barker as to her essential premise, advanced by Kevin Christiansen, that the Josian reform was apostasy. Hamblin follows church teachings to say it was not.
mfbukowski Posted March 18, 2020 Posted March 18, 2020 On 3/11/2020 at 9:10 AM, Islander said: Which is completely different from finding an "interpretation" in the text that is far and away from what God intended in the first place (e.g seeing a reference to a pagan godess in the tree of life). That was the point I was trying to make. And so how do we know that the church's interpretation is true? Moroni 10:4-5, James 1 and others= personal revelation. Without personal revelation one cannot know what is true or false. For this reason personal revelation trumps everything else.
Recommended Posts