Foundational to the Mormon gospel is the existence of Heavenly Mother, the spouse and counterpart of Mormonism’s Heavenly Father. When Mormon Apostle Erastus Snow taught on this concept in 1878, he explained that God is a component being, consisting of both male and female “parts.”
While Apostle Snow’s remarks could be misunderstood, I believe that consideration of his fuller argument (supplied below) suggests that he was talking about social unity in the Godhead, not a blending of male and female into one Being or essence.
Beginning with the idea that the creation of Adam and Eve in God’s image necessitated a male/female Creator God, Apostle Snow’s argument reached its logical (?) end:
“…there can be no God except he is composed of the man and woman united, and there is not in all the eternities that exist, nor ever will be, a God in any other way. I have another description: There never was a God, and there never will be in all eternities, except they are made of these two component parts; a man and a woman; the male and the female.”
Erastus Snow’s Sunday morning discourse provides an unfortunate real-life example of something Paul wrote about in Romans 1; this Mormon apostle exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, and taught others do likewise (see Romans 1:22-25).
Man in His Image—Male and Female Created He Them
Discourse by Apostle Erastus Snow (excerpt)
And every organ adapted to its special use, and for its special purpose, and combining a whole, a grand union—a little kingdom composed of many kingdoms, united and constituting the grand whole, the being we call man, but which in the language of these Scriptures was called Adam—male and female created he them, and called their name Adam, which in the original, in which these Scriptures were written by Moses, signifies “the first man.” There was no effort at distinguishing between the one half and the other, and calling one man and the other woman. This was an after distinction, but the explanation of it is—one man, one being, and he called their name Adam. But he created them male and female, for they were one, and he says not unto the woman multiply, and to the man multiply, but he says unto them, multiply and reproduce your species, and replenish the earth. He speaks unto them as belonging together, as constituting one being, and as organized in his image and after his likeness. And the Apostle Paul, treating upon this subject in the same way, says that man was created in the likeness of God, and after the express image of his person. John, the Apostle, in writing the history of Jesus, speaks in the same way; that Jesus was in the likeness of his Father, and express image of his person. And if the revelations that God has made of himself to man, agree and harmonize upon this theory, and if mankind would be more believing, and accept the simple, plain, clear definition of Deity, and description of himself which he has given us, instead of hunting for some great mystery, and seeking to find out God where he is not and as he is not, we all might understand him. There is no great mystery about it; no more mystery about it than there is about ourselves, and our own relationship to our father and mother, and the relationship of our own children to us. That which we see before our eyes, and which we are experiencing from time to time, day to day, and year to year, is an exemplification of Deity.
“What,” says one, “do you mean we should understand that Deity consists of man and woman?” Most certainly I do. If I believe anything that God has ever said about himself, and anything pertaining to the creation and organization of man upon the earth, I must believe that Deity consists of man and woman. Now this is simplifying it down to our understanding, and the great Christian world will be ready to open their mouths and cry, “Blasphemy! Sacrilege!” Open wide their eyes and wide their mouths in the utmost astonishment. What! God a man and woman? The Shakers say he was, and Ann Lee says, “Christ came in the form of a man in the first place, and now comes in the form of a woman,” and she was that form.
Then these Christians—they say he has no form, neither body, parts nor passions. One party says he is a man, and the other says he is a woman. I say he is both. How do you know? I only repeat what he says of himself; that he created man in the image of God, male and female created he them, and he called their name Adam, which signifies in Hebrew, the first man. So that the beings we call Adam and Eve were the first man placed here on this earth, and their name was Adam, and they were the express image of God. Now, if anybody is disposed to say that the woman is in the likeness of God and that the man was not, and if vice versa, I say you are both wrong, or else God has not told us the truth.
I sometimes illustrate this matter by taking up a pair of shears, if I have one, but then you all know they are composed of two halves, but they are necessarily parts, one of another, and to perform their work for each other, as designed, they belong together, and neither one of them is fitted for the accomplishment of their works alone. And for this reason says St. Paul, “the man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord.” In other words, there can be no God except he is composed of the man and woman united, and there is not in all the eternities that exist, nor ever will be, a God in any other way. I have another description: There never was a God, and there never will be in all eternities, except they are made of these two component parts; a man and a woman; the male and the female. (Journal of Discourses 19:269-270)
—-
What do Christians believe it means to be made in the image of God?
Conformed to His Image by Greg Bailey
The Image of God from Tabletalk Magazine
Sharon, do some research on the ancient meaning of the Cherubim (male female entwined) and that might help you understand what Snow was getting at from a Biblical perspective.
Jason, care to recommend some sources for the investigation of your view on the cherubim?
Jason
I prefer 1 Peter 3: 7 “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as BEING HEIRS TOGETHER OF THE GRACE OF LIFE, that your prayers be not hindered.”
The Bible says that only in the component parts of man and woman can we receive the Grace of Life, or Salvation. Why should we not see God in the same way, as He is our Father?
John, try this link: http://bit.ly/Z06Cuw – excellent research there. The first link is non-lds and quite informative.
Shem, thank you for that verse, that is exactly how I see God. When you combine 1 Peter 3:7 with the knowledge that Adam & Eve were married in the Garden of Eden AND in an eternal state it’s obvious that is exactly what God intended to be the end goal of our salvation. You have, right in Genesis, the eternal marriage concept for those that have ears to hear.
Thanks for the link, Jason. I generally prefer something a bit more scholarly (to say the least) than the link featured there (hence why I was hoping you would make reference to offline sources), but at least it did give some general direction (albeit virtually unsourced) to track down some primary source references. Would you happen to know of any actual articles, monographs, or commentaries that pursue this route? (More recently than the references I found in Raphael Patai’s 1967 book The Hebrew Goddess, that is; I prefer my scholarship a bit more up-to-date where possible. It seems clear to me that the first featured link, to the online article by Les Aron Gosling, is heavily dependent on Patai here.)
As I understand it from cursorily examining those portions of Patai’s book, I note that some of the ancient sources (though of course not all) used chose to cast the purported embrace of the cherubim, not as an image for the unity of sexes in the divine, but as a symbol of the insoluble love of God and Israel. What is the link you see between the cherubim here (assuming for a moment that they were, in fact, depicted as a male and female figure intertwined to form a singular unit) and the composition of a divine unit (in the sense of a God)?
Also, given that Patai argues that, in the earliest form of this understanding of the cherubim symbolism, the male dimension of God is ‘Elohim’ whereas the female dimension is ‘Yahweh’, how do you correlate this (if at all) with the post-Talmage construction of LDS theology in which ‘Yahweh’ is exclusively identified with the person of the Son? And what constructive purpose do you suggest for Philo’s divvying up of divine character traits into ‘male’ and ‘female’ categories?
And, furthermore (and perhaps a more broadly pressing question), what account might you give that unites both Erastus Snow’s portrayal of God as a male-female unity with the conception of the Godhead as a corporate unit in LDS theology (consisting of Father [with or without Mother?], Son, and Holy Ghost), in such a way as to undergird the relative treatment accorded to the figures of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother?
John, the link to ‘let me google that for you’ was a nice way of saying I have zero desire to do “research” for someone else on esoteric topics. Sharon is free (as are you) to take the basic concept of Cherubim “male female entwined” and run with it and possibly gain a bit of knowledge outside of the effortless salvation motif the Evs beat everybody over the head with.
Jason said, John, the link to ‘let me google that for you’ was a nice way of saying I have zero desire to do “research” for someone else on esoteric topics. Sharon is free (as are you) to take the basic concept of Cherubim “male female entwined” and run with it and possibly gain a bit of knowledge outside of the effortless salvation motif the Evs beat everybody over the head with.
Jason, I was hoping civility, productivity, and scholarship would all be characterizing our conversation. I’m sorry to see that you seem determined not to let this be so – but for my part, should you change your tune and decide to conduct yourself properly around here, I will gladly be party to a fruitful conversation carried forth in tones of mutual respect. Nor is arrogating to yourself (particularly apart from demonstration, if I may put the matter mildly) the sole title to holder of knowledge going to get you far – and, I would add, I can assure you that you are not the only commenter present who is at least somewhat conversant with states of affairs in the scholarly world, assuming that you indeed are.
If you think that the male-and-female-entwined motif of the cherubim is relevant, it would be beneficial, I should think, to actually make your own case by referencing some credible sources. I have no interest in doing the lion’s share of your work for you. (The thesis that this point sheds fruitful light on Erastus Snow’s theology is, after all, yours – and while I do try to be accommodating to my interlocutors in assisting them in dredging up the best case they can for their position, I hardly feel inclined to do so wholly from scratch and without even their feeblest efforts.) I can think of few things intentionally less productive than to throw out a random idea (without offering any substantiating references, or even an explanation as to your thoughts on its relevance) and then to refuse to pursue it further. This unfruitful approach is not ameliorated in the slightest by what I take to be your implicit indications that you will not be answering any of the questions I posed to you.
As for “the effortless salvation motif the Evs beat everybody over the head with”, I can only say that I’m similarly sorry to see that you appear to be such a low-information Latter-day Saint when it comes to the actual texture of Evangelical soteriology.
I don’t think there’s anything more amusing or entertaining than to observe Mormons quoting a Bible verse in an attempt to “prove” some nonsensical Mormon doctrine. The way it works in Mormonism is that one of their “prophets” comes up with a “revelation”. It’s then that the Bible is consulted. A verse is mined and then shaped, twisted, molded and shaved to suit the current need.
This means, in Mormon lore, that there is a male god and a female goddess or many goddesses depending on how the Mormon male scores in the polygamy paradigm?
This is really deep stuff. You have to really feel it. It has to be confirmed in your spirit. Because you know what? I can’t find any place in the Bible that teaches this stuff.
Hay, we are joint heirs with Christ so that must mean????????Surely there has to be a Mormon app for that one also, right?
Anyway folks, if you want to start a religion, claim revelation, grab a couple of Bible verses and it’s all good.
Really John? You don’t condone the lazy man’s way to salvation? You actually want to go on record that you are backing away from effortless pie-in-the-sky salvation fraud? I encourage it but that’s a first for this board.
If I have somehow misaligned your faith with a low-info statement please enlighten me on your brand of Evangelical soteriology. Kindly tell me exactly how you were saved and what you did specifically to achieve that salvation?
This is a genuine request so please be specific so that others may do the same if they feel the need.
Falco, serious? No one is wrenching sources. Everyone knows Adam and Eve were immortal in the garden of Eden. We know they were married. And we know that in that state God commanded them to have offspring. Your everyday grade-school Baptist knows that.
Let’s see… If we only had a name for that. .. Eternal.. something…
We also know that it’s Ev doctrine that the state of the world before the fall is what Evs claim is what God intended for ALL mankind and that Adam and Eve messed it up. Ruined the whole plan.
If one can truly turn around and call 2000 years of Ev thought AND the very Book of Genesis “nonsensical” then I think what we have there is a crisis of faith.
[Jason address Falcon as Falcon, not “Falco”. -grindael]
Jasonrae
I’m sure that John will tell you what he did in a very scholarly way, unfortunately I dont have the command of English that he has so I’ll tell you in one simple sentence:
He believed, because that’s all God asked him to do. John 3:16
Sorry, I know you need something more complicated than that to satisfy your huge ego but I’m afraid it’s all I have.
Jason said, Really John? You don’t condone the lazy man’s way to salvation? You actually want to go on record that you are backing away from effortless pie-in-the-sky salvation fraud? I encourage it but that’s a first for this board. If I have somehow misaligned your faith with a low-info statement please enlighten me on your brand of Evangelical soteriology. Kindly tell me exactly how you were saved and what you did specifically to achieve that salvation?
Allow me to be clear: What I hold, as an Evangelical, is both that we are emphatically not saved by works but rather by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and equally emphatically that we are saved for works (Ephesians 2:10), for “the obedience of faith”, as Paul puts it (Romans 1:5; 16:26), which, as I recently put it elsewhere, is “simply the outward form of living faith over time”. Thus, while the saving work is entirely accomplished by God’s gracious effort through Christ, and while the singular work by which we are saved is to place total faith in the accomplished work of Jesus Christ (cf. John 6:29) rather than in ourselves in order to secure the full panoply of the celestial blessings that God offers (both now and in his immediate presence in the eschatological renewed creation), the life of faith as lived in the presence is one of joyous labor that entails conformity to Christ’s suffering, which is the life of discipleship. (In that there is no particular quota or form of works required to maintain salvation, this should not be confused with a form of covenantal nomism.) Given that the life of the saved is hardly an effortless one, then, calling this an “effortless salvation” or a “no-works salvation” or “the lazy man’s way to salvation” is consequently misdirected, even though it can properly be designated ‘salvation by grace through faith alone’ – because it is also salvation by grace unto works through faith.
Jason said, We also know that it’s Ev doctrine that the state of the world before the fall is what Evs claim is what God intended for ALL mankind and that Adam and Eve messed it up. Ruined the whole plan. If one can truly turn around and call 2000 years of Ev thought AND the very Book of Genesis “nonsensical” then I think what we have there is a crisis of faith.
A point of correction: It is not a universally held Evangelical doctrine by any means that the Edenic state could be identified precisely with the eschatological state, with or without the Fall, but rather only that the Edenic state bore a closer relationship to God’s intended eschatological state than our current state does in several crucial respects, particularly those of blessedness of life and intimacy with our Creator. I certainly accept the latter without the former, and nor do I hold that Adam’s decision caught God off-guard, but rather that it – like the decision of Judas, or the decision of the sons of Jacob aside from Joseph – fit into God’s plan for the ultimate greater good, even while indeed being a sin in itself (Romans 5:16) and being quite contrary to the obligation-grounding commandments and desires of God.
Thanks John, I appreciate your view of salvation. What I’m looking for though is how you came to BE saved. Post-salvation thought is of little concern when discussing the effortless salvation mindset. So for clarity, did you have to DO anything at all to be saved?
Old Man says that you “believed”. Is that accurate? If so, every LDS person I know “believes” emphatically in Christ. And we can’t use the “different Christ” card – we all know there was only ONE historical Christ. While we may have differing view as to His divine nature the LDS don’t worship a Christ that walked the dusty roads of Ethiopia. There is only one historical Son of God and we recognize His atoning work on our behalf.
So again, for clarity, did you have to DO anything at all to be saved? If so what were the exact steps you took? A simple 1,2,3 list will suffice.
I think a better question for John is this: Once a person is saved is it possible for them to loose that salvation?
What most people don’t understand about LDS doctrine is that we would agree with John when he says “that we are emphatically not saved by works but rather by faith.” However, after we are saved we must acted to remain saved, or we will loose the salvation that we once had.
This conversation is about “the “Component Parts” of God”, please stay on topic. There are plenty of posts about salvation. If you wish to discuss that, find one and make your comments there.
Jason,
Cherubim is from the Hebrew word cherub, which is כְּרוּב (kerúv).
Rabbeinu Bachye (ad loc.) explains that the keruvim were male and female. The source for his view is the gemara in Yoma (54a) which speaks of the faces of the keruvim as the faces of a male and a female:
The Abravanel in his commentary to the Torah understands this interpretation of the keruvim as follows:
Their conclusion,
Even Oxford Scholars call all these speculations “Talmudic legends” and “an embarrassment”.
These interpretations are from Midrashic/Talumdic sources, and therefore speculation. The true answer is that it is unknown what the etymology of the word cherub is, but that it most likely has something to do with the word “child”. In any case, this is a dead end in trying to prove your case Jason. Another fallacy of your argument is that you are speaking of keruvim, not GOD. This straw man won’t stand.
Let us talk of the component parts. I gave the one quote from Peter. Let us look at the other quote mentioned by Elder Snow.
1 Corinthians 11: 11 Before this verse Paul talks of how a man is to have his head uncovered, and that the woman was created for the man, and not the other way; he then states that “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” In other words, regardless of all this separation in customs of grooming, a man cannot be in the Lord without the woman by his side.
Just as Peter tells us that it is together that we are heirs of salvation, so to does Paul declare that it is together that we are in the Lord, or are saved through it grace. This is also why we are taught that a man leaves his parents and becomes one flesh with his wife, as that is the only way to true salvation, as we demonstrated in the beginning when God made man and woman and called them Adam, just as Elder Snow points out.
However, one must also note that we do not pray to a heavenly mother, nor is she a direct part of any of our worship of God. We acknowledge that she is there, as this is what constituted deity; but we recognize that it is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that comprise the Godhead, and thus are the ones we worship. It must be made clear that not all God are worshiped.
Shem, I’ll have to make this short , it’s late and I’m struggling right now to have time to post
to say much more . First, concerning 1 Cor 11:11 , I can’t believe Mormons can read so much
into that verse , it simply is conveying the fact that ” in the Lord” ( His will, arrangement) here
is simply reminding us that if a person chooses to marry than there are some serious obligations
involved one to the other , because of the connection that marriage creates . Both the man and
the woman are heirs ” together” . That in no way teaches that single persons can not be an heir —
Rom 8 :14-17.
Now as far as what apostle Snow states, I think he is either is’nt good at articulating what he
believes on this issues or he is a very confused person. What he says creates more questions
than answers . It sounds like since he said that since Adam and Eve ( “they”) were created in
the express image of God , His own image , then this ” God ” must be both Heavenly Father and
Mother . This is the God we encounter in Genesis Ch 1 , especially verses 26-27 ? This seems the
case since he refers to this God as “they” also. Yet , I read where other Mormon leaders have
taught that it’s the Father who is talking to the Son in Gen 1:26 when He says , ” us” and ” our”.
This kind of behavior in interpreting the Scriptures is not good , and it only raises a red flag
about whether these men should be trusted to explain God’s word , in my opinion.
Shem, I would really like to know why you don’t pray to your Heavenly Mother ?
I’m curious why you feel this way.
Mike
Let me try to explain the meaning of Elder Snow.
Deity only exists in the male and female being joined in marriage. One cannot be a God without also having a divine spouse. It is simply impossible.
Thus, the Father can only be God if there also exists a mother; the two being one flesh, as it is written. However, this does not mean they are literally a single entity; but rather that they are inseparably connected in the eternal worlds. Thus they are two beings, who together make on a unit that we refer to as deity.
With this understanding we must also understand that the husband is the head of the family; this being set up by God on earth to mirror the economy of Heaven. Thus it is the Father that is the Head, and thus it is the Father that is literally doing the talking; but He is talking for the unit that is deity.
Now, as the account in Genesis 1: 26 is given it is the Father talking to the Son as he directs Christ is the forming of this Earth. However, this does not mean that His wife was not involved, or not present. We read in Abraham 4: 1 “And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.” This shows that all the gods were involved. Much of the creation story in Abraham is dealing with preparation and planning rather than actual creation, as is seen in the number of times that the gods say “We will” do such and such, or “let us prepare” this. In verses 26-27 we read “And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness…So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.” All this was planned and set out by the Gods in a great council.
After they had set forth the plan Christ carried it out, and thus in Genesis 1: 26 the Father, or the Head of the God, the president of that Council, directed the work and commanded His son to create man as the Gods had already planned.
As to why we do not pray to our heavenly mother, it is the same reason that we do not pray to Christ. Our Father is the Head of the Gods, and is thus the one Supreme being, holding not only all power, but all authority over us. We pray only to Him, and to no one else. We acknowledge the existence of our mother, but she does not hold that position of authority that our Father does.
This is mirrored here on earth in the Presidency of the church. It is Thomas S. Monson that has the authority, and thus it is to him that we look to lead the church. We acknowledge that he is married, but that marriage does not elevate his wife to the authority of the Presidency.
So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female
Shem, I can say that after reading apostle Snow’s sermon about the God we meet in the opening
chapters of the Bible , that Mr. Snow was a confused man . He tries very hard to squeeze
Mormonism’s doctrine of a Divine Mother Goddess into the scriptures here in Genesis and
in doing so makes a mess . He speaks of the God in Gen 1:26 as comprising two ” parts” one
male and one female , i.e. a God and His Goddess wife. He seems reluctant say ” Goddess”
because his flock may not buy into this kind of interpretation of Gen 1:26 . He knows this
doctrine was new because the dead prophets of the past ( Bible , BofM) taught no such thing
as a Mother Goddess being one of God’s wives in heaven. This was ” new revelation ” by a
latter day prophet and he knew that it would be even more readily embraced by people if he
could prove somehow that the Bible actually reveals it . Mormon authorities have said that
the “us” and “our” of Gen 1:26 is the Father talking to the Son , yet other influencial Mormons
have said that the Father and His Goddess wife are the ones we observe here. That’s enough
for me to look else where for insight on the Bible . Now the real disheartening thing about this
Heavenly Mother doctrine as espoused by Mormon leaders concerns the way LDS have been
convinced by their leaders in how to treat their Mother in heaven . Mormons are taught that
their parents love them deeply , and therefore LDS should honor all their parents :
” Honoring your parents by living a good life and by showing them that you love and appreciate
them are gifts that last forever . To your earthly mother and father AND to your Heavenly
Parents , you are their most valuable treasure . Their love and concern for you never ends.”
[ Friends magazine , Dec .1974, p2-3 ] . LDS are taught that one way to honor their parents
is to show appreciation by telling them how grateful they are for their love . This is done
verbally to their earthly parents and to their Heavenly Father it is done through prayer .
Yet , Mormon officials have counseled LDS that prayer to their Heavenly Mother in not
appropriate Christian behavior ! Church curriculum states ” We should pray to express love
to our Heavenly Father and feel close to Him .” [ Gospel Principles , 2009, Ch 8] . What Mother
does’nt want to hear her children tell her they love and appreciate her ? Yet this parent
dishonoring doctrine by Mormon heirarchy robs faithful LDS ( especially women ) of this
normal parent -child experience . Sadly , but this would’nt be the first time that good common
sense rightfully trumps alleged ” godly counsel” from their leaders.
Shem, you don’t seem to understand this . You reminded me of the Father’s authority as head
in heaven over His wife you even tried to bolster that view by using Pres. Monson as an
example of authority over his wife here on earth since it mirrors heaven’s arrangement etc.
But we’re not talking about a mother being the head of the family and authority over her husband
we’re talking about common decency of being able to communicate with your mother ! Does
Pres. Monson allow his children to talk with his wife , their mom ? Of course. See how illogical
your analogy is ? One of the most ridiculous things I have ever read was in church curriculum
about how young women as daughters of God can show their appreciation to their Heavenly
Father and foster a closer relationship with Him , and one way was through prayer telling Him
of their love and appreciation , and yet these young women were not taught that this normal
child- parent activity could also be experienced between them and their Heavenly Mom. Sad.
Heavenly Mother ? This doctrine is another example of how false prophets can create a doctrine
out of whole cloth and then try to package it as “new revelation” . Mormons need to know
the true God in heaven , He is’nt a polygamist , He does’nt need to be married as the latter days
prophets of Mormonism [ Matt 24:11] claim. He is the Lord God Almighty and as such He can
care for His children —-1Peter 5:7 ; John 1:12.
Despite the fact that JoD are not an official source of LDS doctrine and really much more a compilation of talks and contain much “Speculative Theology”, Erastus Snow makes a very cogent argument. In contrast to those who would otherwise promulgate the Traditional Christian views. Traditional Christianity has long obfuscated a very plain, precious and frankly simply mundane aspect of God.. That being we (Man) were created in God’s express image, MALE and FEMALE.
To promulgate and obfuscate this they ignore the historical context of the very Bible they turn to, and in turn attempt to interpret the text according to extra-biblical dogma to serve their parochial need, instead of reading the Biblical text is their proper historical context.. It’s now a fairly well established fact that the early Jews believed in a female counter part to YHWH.. this was later redacted out of the texts by the post-exile Deuterominists. Her memory survived and is often referred to as Sophia..”Wisdom” in ancient Jewish and early Christian literature… but just as Apostle snow states the typical Christian indoctrinated with the traditional dogma is taught to cry “Blasphemy! Sacrilege!”. Yet is not the true blasphemy and sacrilege the very dogma that obfuscates the very sacred feminine attributes of deity and thus our relationship with God?
OC,
The Journal of Discourses IS an official source of Mormon Doctrine. Of course nowadays they deny this, but when they were published they absolutely were.
This is pure speculation. It is well established speculation, but that is all it can ever be unless they can find some original biblical manuscripts to verify it.
grindael,
You are incorrect. the JoD is not the Official source for LDS doctrine.. Although I would tend to agree that it seems to be the official source for Anti-Mormons.
Whether or not members of the Church accepted them as official sources of doctrine when they were published is largely irrelevant to the church today.. If you disagree might I remind you that there are plenty of ECF writing and some biblical works that were considered official doctrine only to be declared heresy later.. And the reverse is also true, some once deemed heretical works found there way to be come scripture.. I.e. The book of Revelations.
Interesting.. this site filtered the term “Ant i – Mormon” as profanity…
grindael,
As for YHWH believed to have a female counter part in antiquity .. It is indeed FACT.. although there is great speculation as to what that really means. You are correct we don’t have any Original OT works.. or any NT writings either… And the OT we have is based on manuscripts that aren’t even as old as the NT manuscripts. And it’s a FACT they were altered and redacted, DSS have proved this beyond question… To what extent is more the question. And additionally, who authored the OT text in the first place? That too is a questions, for as one studies the OT Text, one becomes increasing aware that the text is full of text lifted straight from the Canaanites as evidenced by the Ugartic texts. The Canaanites had a belief in YHWH too.. he was the brother of Baal, son of El.
Sorry OC, but I am not “incorrect”. And trying to erect a straw man by saying that some of the Early Church Fathers & some Biblical works were considered official doctrine and then considered heresy has nothing to do with the Journal of Discourses.
First, WHO considered them doctrine? Who considered them heresy? And why does that even matter?
Joseph Smith never trusted the entire Bible anyway, that is why he tried to “re-translate” it. As for the JOD, they were published under the auspices of Brigham Young, and one of it’s publishers, his son Brigham Young Jr. said,
“Each successive year the power of God is manifestly increasing upon His people, and more especially upon his ministers in the Holy Priesthood, whose duty it is to build up and instruct the Church in His most holy will. The “Journal of Discourses” is a vehicle of doctrine, counsel, and instruction to all people, but especially to the Saints. It follows, then, that each successive volume is more and more valuable as the Church increases in numbers and importance in the earth, and its doctrines become more and more abundantly developed and are brought into practical exercise by His peculiar people. Every step of its advancement is fraught with the greatest possible importance to the human family. No Saint can afford to do without these precious precepts until they are able to exemplify them in their daily lives and conversation.” ~ “Apostle” Brigham Young Jr. Preface to Vol. 11, p. iii (1867)
Today, the church may reject this, but it was not always the case. What should be the question here is why those in the days when they were published said they were doctrine, and that those in power today say they are not. Weren’t they just as much “apostles” and “prophets” then as they are now? It would be like Peter saying he would no longer include parts of what Jesus said as scripture because he no longer agreed it was doctrine. Rather silly.
And saying that the JOD is an “official source” for critics of the church is disingenuous. Mormon authorities and scholars quote from them quite freely, but only with things they now agree with.
This is your speculation. Please SHOW me where it is FACT. Sources please.
OC,
Which Ugaritic texts are you referring to? Which ones specifically, and why do you insist that Ugaritic texts were copied into the OT is FACT, when clearly nothing of the sort can be proven?
That it does supply some background information that throws some light on the cultural and some theological aspects of the OT documents is true, but to say that those texts were lifted and then copied in the OT is speculative theory.
There are many other ancient texts besides those discovered at Ras Shamra, each of which plays a consequential part in our discovery of the OT.
The seven tablets containing the Baal mythos &c, are in such bad condition that their original order cannot be determined, nor can it be determined whether they ever formed a continuous narrative, such as is found in Enuma Elish.
Plus, they texts are written in a non-vowelled alphabetic script that remains imperfectly understood, extremely obscure, and scholars differ considerably in both translation and interpretation of the Ugaritic material. Comparisons between translations of Virolleaud, and Ginsberg, Gaster, Driver, and Gordon, etc, indicate the disparity between translators, despite what some consider a broad range of agreements in other parts.
What light can be thrown on the OT is largely in the area of what some consider the mythical background, creation myths, etc, but it must be noted that the whole area at the eastern Mediterranean was a place abounding in myths and legends, many of which are similar if not identical to each other.
There is neither room nor time here to identify the major s-called parallels, nor to explore which of these was pre-eminent, or whether all together they reflect an even more ancient fount of documentary information that has either eluded detection thus far, or has failed to survive.
There is a divergence on the History of Israel’s God in scholarship today. What is surely speculation (by those like Michael S. Heiser who believes in Extraterrestrials) – and by other scholars has not been proven at all. It is conjecture, that is all. If you want to buy into the Canaanite and Ugaratic myths as an Origin of the Hebrew God, you must buy into ALL their doctrines AND SPECULATIONS. I ascribe to the belief that there was ONE GOD, worshiped by the authors of the Bible, and the ‘other gods’ were not real, but ‘later developments’ of other nations. Statements that they don’t ‘fit’ a fundamentalist view of the Bible is mere opinion, and cannot be supported by actual evidence, because there are no original Hebrew texts to do so with. You have no way to disprove that the Hebrew theology predates the Canaanite.
As for Asherah, I read Judith Hadley’s book, (which is one example of what some claim are FACTS) and copied (below) from the Conclusion of her book:
“I provided an overview of the different OPINIONS concerning Asherah…
Chapter 2 examined the Ugaritic materials … and thus HINTS as some sort of…
It is noted that the precise etymology of asherah remains UNCERTAIN…
It is POSSIBLE that the goddess came to Ugarit from Amurru..and the name of her servant Qadesh (-and-) Amrur MAY reflect that origin.
Additionally, many other ancient Near Eastern goddesses … MAY be related to Asherah.
It is therefore DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE EXACTLY which goddesses sprang from which.
Chapter 3 was concerned with the biblical material…it has been noted that asherah USUALLY DENOTES SOME SORT OF WOODEN OBJECT, WHICH IS HUMANLY MADE. … This MAY be a wooden image …or MAY be a stylized TREE. However, Some verses APPEAR TO INDICATE a goddess.
It MAY BE that Yahweh … was forced to take on some of Asherah’s fertility attributes.
By the time of the Chronicler the term ‘asherah’ had ceased to have any rememberance of the goddess, and the later versions also consider IT to be a TREE.
FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE HEBREW BIBLE (AND INDEED, IN THE UGARITIC LITERATURE) that Asherah was intimately connected with Baal. Of course it is POSSIBLE …
Chapter 4 examined Khirbet el-Qom … I have come to the conclusion that Lemaire’s reading IS MOST PROBABLE, ALBEIT WITH MINOR ALTERATIONS…
..it is UNLIKELY that ‘asherah’ in this case refers directly to the goddess…
Then she makes the statement: ..it shows this CULTIC symbol was part of Yahwistic worship.. (how she can come to this conclusion based on the above is beyond me)
She then qualifies that statement with this:
IT MAY BE that at this time Yahweh was absorbing this symbol into his cult… (again the may be’s, the it’s possible, etc)
Chapter 5 closely examined the finds from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. I have had to rely to some extent upon photographs, drawings and readings of the inscription BY OTHER SCHOLARS. Here I DISAGREE with the excavators… it MAY be similar to the biblical malon.
Again she concludes with a MAYBE:
…Yahweh was worshipped with his special cultic object, known as asherah, which MAY STILL HAVE SOME CONNECTION TO THE GODDESS OF THE SAME NAME..(CONTRA SCHOLARS SHUCH AS DE MOOR, WHO ASSERT THAT ‘THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE PLACE FOR A GODDESS IN EARLY YAHWISM’; 1995, p. 222)
Chapter 6 considered relevant finds from five other sites. The goddess on the gold plaque IS PROBABLY Astarte, and the charred wooden remains could not be CONFIDENTLY IDENTIFIED AS AN ASHERAH.
The cultic stands from Pella and Taannach MAY BE EVIDENCE for the worship of Asherah.. one depicting stylized TREES and the other … a pair of naked females standing on the heads of lions, MAY SHOW that Asherah was worshipped…
Chapter 7 We can trace the goddess FROM HER POSSIBLE ORIGINS in the steppe-lands of Syria … on to Ugarit … her CULT MAY HAVE SPREAD to the region of ancient Israel quite early.
Here is the essence of her book: Possibly, maybe and speculation. The quote above by Keel & Uehlinger sums it up nicely:
If some want to believe these speculations, one must buy into the premise that asherah was ‘absorbed’ into the religion of Yahweh, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I for one, will not go there. The God of Israel WAS ONE GOD … and these instances are CULT WORSHIP in Israel … NOT EVEN REMOTELY PROVEN TO BE AN ACCEPTED FORM OF WORSHIP to the ancient Israelites except by TRYING TO FILL IN DETAILS with speculation. This also applies to the ‘council of gods’ and ALL OTHER GODS that intrude upon the mainstream worship of the One God of Israel.
grindael,
This is the point.. If the church today doesn’t accept it then it’s largely irrelevant to anyone today. And likewise, the same fact exists with the Traditional Christian history.. That certain ECF were considered authoritative in their day is largely irrelevant in the fact they aren’t viewed that way today.
It’s not irrelevant if the church is doing so because of contradictions in doctrine or embarrassment. Are those men NOT considered apostles and prophets any longer? And last I heard, the Mormon Church does not see the ECF’s as prophets and apostles, with authority to speak FOR and AS God, and neither do the Christians.
First of all, this is hardly a forum for the depth of inquiry and evidence you are asking for.. Your lengthy posts are a bit too much to respond too in this format, not withstanding I find there is a post limit of six posts a day, makes a dialog impossible.
Psalm 74.. Please tell the reading audience about the Sea Monsters.. who/what were they? And why was this left out of Genesis Chapter 1?
To the point of the Blog post, God created man in his image, Male and Female.
Has any of those critical of the LDS faith ever stopped and pondered this seriously? I mean set aside for a moment the antipathy you might hold against the LDS faith, set aside the plural references we find in the Biblical text, set aside all this discussion about Asherah and ancient Hebrew worship of a female deity..and ask yourself this simple yet fundamental question.
” Why did God create Man as male and female”?
There is a lot of pondering that should go into that question. The answer can’t be that we need genetic diversity, since Adam and Eve technically according to the Bible must have had the same Genetics.. Eve was formed from Adams rib ? Certainly the omnipotent God of the all could have made Man asexual so that they could reproduce by parthenogenesis as some other species do.. So really the answer can be either –
1) the choice to make them male and female, what nothing more than the product of God’s whim.. and the sexual identity serves no other purpose.
OR
2) the choice wasn’t actually a choice, but based upon a pattern.. I.e. a pattern in heaven whereby there exists male and female identities.
How you answer this question to yourself may have far reaching implications for the future and how you see yourself in the afterlife with God.. Consider that if sexual identity was nothing more than God’s whim, would you retain that identity in heaven? Or would if serve no purpose and be taken away in the Resurrection?
If sexual identity is patterned after heavenly precedents, then it seems the logical follow through is that our identities would be persevered in the heavenly afterlife…
Oceancoast
I am very interested in this idea that YHWH was the brother of Baal and both were the son of El. I am not asking for a list of evidence, but if you could give me a book title, or webpage in which this can be found, I would very much appreciate it.
Oh, and speaking of the JOD, it was relevent in its time, but not as much so today. That is not to say that these men were not prophets and apostles, but that we are not in a position to ask them for a clarification of their meaning. When the JOD was printed these men were still alive and able to render clarification or other such commentary. Since this is no longer the case we do not use these volumes to establish doctrine, as it is not always certain what these men meant at the time.
Mike
Of course my analogy is not perfect. No analogy could be perfect, as we are trying to compare earthly things with eternal things. Such comparisons will always fall short.
However, you are failing to understand the doctrine. In this life we will not have a direct relationship with our heavenly mother, but we still know she is there and that she is watching us and that she loves us. However, we are separated from heaven and thus from the presence of God. In this state we only seek out our Father, as it is our Father that has the authority to bring us back.
Consider how things worked long ago. When a father declared that a child was no longer welcome in the house it didn’t matter what the mother said, as it was the Father who held the authority. Until the Father allows that child back into the house a relationship with the mother was not possible. Thus it was to the father that the child went to seek out a relationship and be reconsiled to the family.
In the same way, through his authority, our Heavenly Father has declared us unwelcome in His house. He has outlined the process by which we can become reconsiled and enter again into his presence, and thus regain our relationship with our mother as well. But it is still through him that we must go. To go to our mother would be an attempt to circumvent the authority of our Father, and he will not tolerate that.
Now, before one tries to claim that this places the women on a lower fround, let us just remember that our heavenly mother exists as a goddess and thus has the same knowledge, power, and glory as our Father. They are of one mind, and thus all that he does is approved of by her.
Cop out. You just have nothing to say. I’ve had discussions here with Mormon Hebrew Scholars and they never complained, so I guess you have nothing substantial to offer.
And of course because you have nothing on Ugarit, you throw out red herrings.
This makes no sense. Jo Smith is dead, so throw out the Book of Mormon and the D&C then.
“It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Genesis 2:18
But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?'” Romans 9:20
shematwater,
For starters on the Yahweh son of El is found in the Ugartic text KTU 1.1 14.. Where Yawheh is the son of El. I interpolated the ‘brothers’ since Baal is also a son of El. Two sons of the same father makes them brothers. ,
It seems to me there are a lot of books written on this.. I have read some from Mike Heiser, Micheal Dever and Margaret Barker among others.. Wikipedia might be as good a place to start and follow the references there . Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_(Canaanite_deity)
The OT is peppered with Canaanite myth references which until the discovery of the Ugarit texts were fairly obscure as to what in the world the Bible text was referring too..A case point which seemed to escape grindael here was the reference in Psalms 74 and the Sea Monster. Psalms 74 includes a creation myth , like Genesis 1, but a tad more abbreviated but it includes a reference to God defeating the Sea Monster.. When one understands the contextual time period back drop, this is nothing more than a reference to the Canaanite Baal cycle where Baal defeats Yam (the sea monster or god of the sea) in the act of creation. This same Canaanite reference is reflected in Genesis but more subtlety.. In Genesis 1, and darkness was over the surface of the deep (hebrew Tehom , the Canaanite word for the primordial waters is ‘taham’)) God divides the waters (hebrew- Mah-yim) .
If one takes note, in Genesis God doesn’t create the waters .. they seem to pre-exist, but God divides the waters. This too is part of the Canaanite myth, where Yam the sea monster is divided to make heaven and earth.. Notice the similarity in words.. mah-yim and yam, tehom and taham.
There is much more.. Micheal Heiser recently published a book called “The Myth that was True” and he discusses this in greater detail.
grindael,
I can speak to your experience with other commenter’s here.. But this blog has a limitation of six comments a day.. I don’t find that conducive to any sort of in-depth discussion, let alone waste that allotment responding to all your posts.
As for cop-outs.. You should look in the mirror.. Not only did my reference to Psalm 74 seem to completely elude you as you had no response but to call it a red herring, which it wasn’t, but your comments regarding the question as to “Why did God create Man as male and female.”?
Your first reply was to cite Genesis 2, ” It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”, which doesn’t address the question of sexual identity at all.. It address companionship.. God could have created two asexual beings so they wouldn’t have been alone… but man was created.. Male and female..
Your second citation was an out of context appeal to Romans 9, inferring that it’s wrong to even ask the question.. Which is a blatant cop out on your part. I presume the appeal to Romans 9 was that the questions stirs up uncomfortable feelings due the cognitive dissonance you may be experiencing.
At least I could give you an answer. And it’s a legitimate answer. God has the right to do whatever He chooses. And God said right in Genesis why he created male and female. It’s just not satisfying to you, hence Romans 9. You just didn’t like my answer. And I see you will give Shem an answer about Ugarit, but that is only because you can do so without quoting sources. If you did, it can be proved that it is all speculation. I’m on to your game. You can’t back up what you say, so you blame it on a limit of only SIX long posts? LOL. Cop out.
Psalm 74 is a red herring.
It was a cop-out answer or you’re having difficulty with comprehension. The question wasn’t about God’s right or the loneliness of Adam, it was why Male and Female instead of some other asexual model. Genesis doesn’t answer unless you are willing to accept that God’s image and likeness is that of both Males and Females, which would support the proposition that God has a both a male and female components.. Hence the “US/OUR” in Genesis 1:26. Thus the answer to my question is that we are Males and Females because that’s the model in heaven.. That’s how God is.
Your position seems to be that of it’s all just God’s whim and you shouldn’t question or even think about it..
As for the Urgartic and Psalm 74 you also dodge.. despite what appears so obvious that Ugartic myths have been incorporated into the OT texts, It appears to me your contention is that it’s all speculation. Well, if the contention is against speculations, then surely you realize that the whole Christian story is speculation.. There is NO objective evidence to prove that Jesus was anything more than a myth promulgated by a Jews living in Asia minor. It’s all subjective belief and speculation that the stories written by these Jews in Asia are true.. The more reasonable explanation for advent of Christianity would be a cult of Jews living in Asia minor under the pending duress of the Roman persecution of Jews, in a effort to change their identity conflated Mithraism with their Judaism.
And likewise, there is nothing but speculative subjective believe that the story of Moses and the Exodus was anything more than a myth.
So this dodge that “it can be proved it is all speculation’ is nothing but a cop-out. Since in reality when it comes to Faith based matters.. It’s all speculation in the first place.
OC,
Here is where you are wrong about what my point was. We have a Biblical Text. We have the discoveries at Ras Shamra, etc. The Ras Shamra texts are REAL. The Biblical Texts may or may not be, but they are supported by credible evidence, at least to about 100B.C. (I’m not talking about the supernatural parts).
It is speculation to link the Biblical texts to the discoveries at Ras Shamra, etc.
Trying to say (as you did) that it is a FACT that they are linked is speculation or that parts of the OT are redacted is also speculation. You can’t PROVE IT. No one can. That is the whole crux of my argument. Everything else that you threw out there is a red herring in relation to this. And not wanting to show the connection by quotes (your claimed FACTS) shows that you can’t.
Mormons constantly divert issues into something that they think they can “win” or “stalemate” when they try and prove Jo Smith’s speculative theology of “many gods” by saying this was a FACT or that was a FACT in relation to ancient works that are taken out of context (divinization) destroy the monotheism of Israel (Ugaritic Texs), Temple speculation (Margaret Barker), Female Deity speculation (Asherah).
And I’m all for thinking about things, but you are the one who said:
You claim that Christianity has long obfuscated that man/woman was created as an “express” physical image of a male/female god. Not true. It says,
Did he create them in his spiritual image, his physical image, his moral image … what? How does one know what an invisible God looks like? In other words, what part of us is the image of the invisible God? Paul said,
Again,
This is the Trinity, for there is and always was ONE GOD worshiped by the Hebrews. (And not those that strayed into the idol worship of fertility gods) This is, by the way, why Jo Smith made a fatal error of identifying the fertility god MIN as God the Father sitting upon his throne in his Book of Abraham.
Even in the first verse of the Hebrew Bible, we see the beginnings of this doctrine: the word for God is the plural form אֱלֹהִים Elohîm, yet the verb “created” is the singular form בָּרָא bārā’, not the plural form baru. Three persons, ONE GOD.
grindael,
This is true.. It’s impossible to PROVE history. Yet, it’s possible to show evidence of probable cause. Such is what I did with Psalm 74,.. but if your looking for absolute proof, then none exists you are correct.. and as you claim Joseph Smith had speculative theology, such is the same for ALL theologians in the world.. NONE Have proof.. None have proof that God even exists.
OC,
Please refresh my memory about what “probable evidence of cause” you showed for Psalm 74 and what exactly you were trying to prove by it.
grindael,
I know this seem to be escaping you, but it was you that appeared to deny the influence of the Ugartic / Cannanaite beliefs on the ancient Israelites and subsequently the Biblical text. Therefore I pointed you to Psalm 74 and asked you to explain the Sea Monster in the creation story included therein.. Now you are correct there is no irrefutable “PROOF” that the “Sea Monster” is a reference to the Yam God of the Sea in the Baal Cycle, but it seems to fit the probable cause that the Ugartic Epic was the origin of the text considering the historical time/place context.. Such a view is consistent with the Biblical scholarship on the matter.
LOL. And yes, I do deny that there is any PROOF that the Hebrews borrowed from Canaanite myths and incorporated them into their theology. There isn’t any, and using Psalm 74 as a prooftext is ludicrous . It is RANK SPECULATION, and that is obviously all you have, since you will provide no quotes/evidence/proof, because you say, you can’t be bothered. (But you can post such inane comments as the above). Thanks for the chuckle. Get back to me when you want to get serious. And it is not “impossible to prove history”, it’s done all the time. But not for what you claim, nor the Book of Mormon.
You know what “probable” means, don’t you? It isn’t FACT like you claimed in the beginning. Toning it down now? For all we know the Canaanites got their legends from the Hebrews. But since there are ZERO Hebrew texts from that period to compare, we will NEVER KNOW until some are found. If ever.
And please stop with the red herring of the Bible’s supernatural claims. That was never on the table and you know it.