Yahweh needs no Asherah

Yahweh needs no Asherah.

He says to none, “You complete me.”

He needs no partner.

He needs no permission.

He needs no counsel.

He needs no counterpart.

He needs no complement.

He creates, not by sexual union or cooperation, but by the effortless, self-sufficient, raw power of his word. “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.” (Isaiah 44:24)

He says, “Let there be” (Genesis 1), and there is.

“He upholds the universe by the word of his power.” (Hebrews 1:3)

He creates, not by conflict with supernatural forces, but with uncontested authority, “hovering over the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1:2) — ready to act and completely sovereign.

Before him kings become as wild animals, and grind their teeth, and concede, “none can stay his hand.” (Daniel 4:35)

“My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.” (Isaiah 46:10)

Cut down your Asherah poles. Burn them in the fire of repentance.

The Lord God does not need a wife.

This entry was posted in God the Father, Marriage and Singlehood, Nature of God and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Yahweh needs no Asherah

  1. historybuff says:

    The Asherah pole is an odd pagan addition to LDS theology, but it is there.

    “An Asherah pole was a sacred tree or pole that stood near Canaanite religious locations to honor the pagan goddess Asherah, also known as Astarte.” http://www.gotquestions.org/Asherah-pole.html

    Pagan or not, the Mormons teach that, during a vision to Joseph Smith, God favorably referred to the pagan symbol during a revelation to their Prophet Nephi. According to the Mormon Church’s Maxwell Institute, —

    “Asherah was the chief goddess of the Canaanites… In 1 Nephi 11 [in the Book of Mormon], Nephi considers the meaning of the tree of life as he sees it in vision. In answer, he receives a vision of “a virgin, . . . the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.” The answer to his question about the meaning of the tree lies in the virgin mother with her child. The virgin is the tree in some sense and Nephi accepted this as an answer to his question.” http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/9/2/S00003-50be458eb2b313Peterson.pdf

    Why would Joseph Smith be favorably focused on Asherah? Here’s one possibility:
    “She had different names for each of the cultures she showed up in, but the common denominator was that she was a representation of sex and fertility.” http://lifeafter.org/ashera-and-the-heavenly-mother-of-mormonism/

    Sex again. Joseph Smith’s obsession with polygamy and young girls evidently knew no bounds. Even the Mormon Church has recently had to acknowledge this unfortunate aspect of Mormon doctrine and history. http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1733664-155/plural-marriage-essay-smith-church-joseph

  2. historybuff says:

    I’m going out on a limb here, but I think Aaron is saying that he doubts God has a wife…

  3. Mike R says:

    It’s hard to believe how far Mormon leaders have strayed from the scriptural truth about God . Paul’s warning in 2 Tim 4:3,4 are fitting for today , and help identify Mormon apostles as men not appointed by Jesus to preach .

    So now we have a Mormon professor proving that the Book of Mormon teaches a Goddess in heaven ? Prof Petersen does’nt speak for the church , he’s not even a General Authority . He lets his assumptions run wild and in doing so is able to pull a rabbit out of a hat — he produces the doctrine of a heavenly mother out of the Book of Mormon!

    The Bible teaches no such thing . But that does not stop false prophets from trying to validate some of their strange doctrinal revealments by using the Bible .

    The Mormon people deserve better guides , men who are reliable in teaching from the scriptures , not men who have a pattern of creating teachings that are not sound . 1Tim 4:6

  4. historybuff says:

    The concept of a Mother in Heaven, although comforting to some, has no basis in the Bible or even in any of the unique Mormon scriptures. Even the Mormons have to admit that.

    “President Joseph Fielding Smith noted that “the fact that there is no reference to a mother in heaven either in the Bible, Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants, is not sufficient proof that no such thing as a mother did exist there.” “ https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/115-6-78-87.pdf

    Joseph Smith pulled this doctrine straight out of early paganism.

  5. historybuff says:

    If you’re going to argue that the scriptures decree a Mother in Heaven, you might as well argue that the scriptures decree there are no women in heaven: Revelations 8: 1 : Same twisted logic; same contorted interpretation. But Mormons consider the latter a peasant joke for church meetings, but they’re deadly serious about the former.

  6. Mike R says:


    Well said .

  7. historybuff says:

    Mike R —

    Thank you. We aim to please.

    (Sometimes we aim low, but still…)

  8. falcon says:

    Another exhibit in the trial of “let’s make up a religion”.
    I’ve always said that these guys were in a free flow of consciousness; religious creativity on steroids when they came up with their “doctrine”. It’s sort of amazing the things that hit the cutting room floor or just sort of disappeared over the years. We have Joseph Smith’s proclamations of men living on the moon and Young’s going one better with men living on the sun. Just about anything Young ever said is stored away in the Mormon closet labeled “opinions of the prophet; do not open”.

  9. falcon says:

    Back to basics. The LDS believe this stuff because they think the “prophets” and other leaders have had and are having mystical experiences beyond their own. For years the rank-and-file believed that the apostles that head the LDS church all have had Jesus appear to them. The redo on that is that these men have a “witness” of Jesus Christ not that they actually have seen Him.
    The LDS never think to question whether any of the mystical experiences that Joseph Smith and others claimed to have had actually happened. They have gotten away with their claims because of lack of confidence on the part of the true believers. This is why the smack in the face that comes with learning the truth is so devastating to those who have put their faith and trust in these men; what they claim to have experienced and have supposedly “revealed” to them.
    Just think of what you can get people to believe once you have convinced them that things that make them feel good are true. LDS in Utah are famous (?) for buying into all sorts of frauds and schemes because they are so gullible. This gullibility is fostered by a religious sect that takes advantage of people who have surrendered their minds and wills to the leaders.
    When LDS used to post here on a regular basis, one thing that I noticed was that certain ones would be obsessed with what “church” I belonged to. They had it in their heads that their is one true church. I’d try to explain to them that I belonged to the Mystical Body of Christ peopled by all those who have been born again by the Spirit of God through faith in Jesus. I’m afraid it just flew right by them. I guess I should have figured out a way to make my explanation feel good to them.

  10. falcon says:

    Time for the resident lapsed Catholic to chime in here regarding the real Queen of Heaven who is Mary the mother of Jesus. Got that LDS? Let’s confuse things a little bit; just for fun.

    “Thus the simple logic of the Church is that if Scripture reveals that Mary is the Mother of the Word-made-Flesh, and the Word-made-flesh is God, then Mary is the Mother of God (the Word), not from eternity of course, but beginning in time and for eternity. To say only that Mary is the Mother of Jesus or only the Mother of Christ, is to subscribe unwittingly to the doctrines of heretics who denied the unity of the Christ’s Divine and Human Natures.”

    “That Kingdom ruled by God is the same as the Kingdom ruled eternally by the Son of David. It is not an earthly kingdom, though it is present on earth in the Church, but a heavenly kingdom, the Kingdom of God. The Queen of that Kingdom is the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of the Lord God Jesus Christ.”


  11. makeitshine says:

    The Bible says that the new jerusalem (the perfected church) is our mother. Galatians 4:26 Mary is the new eve and the archetype for the church. Queen mother is a proper and totally biblical title for Mary but it should be understood that there is a deeper meaning to that -as the archetype so that she’s kept in her proper teaching place. Just like the father is not a man neither is our literal spiritual mother an exhalted woman. Mormonism models God/s after created things. Maybe the real reason mormons can’t talk about heavenly mother is because since God has many wives we may not all have the same heaven mom and that could get confusing right. Also mormon women- be prepared to be cut off from your spirit children when they are on their planet because apparently only men are fit for raising earth children. Wow I just realized how bad this really is :/

  12. historybuff says:

    Thank you, Makeitshine. Since you brought it up, I think we would be remiss if we didn’t point out that LDS leaders have taught that not only does Elohim have a wife, but that He likely has SEVERAL polygamous wives.

    The LDS Apostle Orson Pratt wrote in his book “The Seer”:
    “Each God, through his wife OR WIVES, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever and ever.” http://atheism.about.com/od/mormomism/a/God-Married-Heavenly-Mother.htm

    Numerous other LDS leaders have affirmed that Elohim has at least one wife. Evidently, Mormons believe that we not only have a Heavenly Mother, but that we may very well have a Heavenly Aunt or two. Or three. Or seven. Or, if Joseph Smith reflected the celestial standard, maybe twenty-eight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives

    And we’re not even talking about the Gods other than Elohim. Assuming there are several hundred or thousand other Gods besides Elohim residing on or near the planet Kolob [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob ] , we could have even more Heavenly Aunts.

    No doubt about it, being a Mormon can get very complicated.

  13. Mike R says:

    Joseph Smith’s proclaiming of sound doctrine about God ,in which he used the Bible and Book of Mormon to originally proclaim and send out missionaries with in order to teach what was ” the correct concept of God ” , was soon altered as he began to stray from the scriptural account . He soon succumbed to personal apostasy and unfortunately introduced his new doctrinal innovations to his flock . Teaching about the Creator , the Lord God Almighty who was always God , was changed into teaching about Gods , many Gods , ordinary males from other worlds who had become Gods , three of which was given this earth to rule over by a God higher than they . But Joseph’s slide away from the scriptural testimony about God did’nt stop there . Near the end of life he started to reveal that a Goddess is up in heaven also , but due to his untimely death it was to left to subsequent Mormon prophets to carry with on with that new ” gospel truth ” .

    What’s clear about all this is that it pictures the error of what most false prophets in the latter days are identified by — doctrinal vacillation . To be unstable in teaching about who God is , is a red flag and those who are aware of Jesus’ warning in Matt 24:11 know that . But sadly , many people are still fooled by false prophets because rather than testing them as the apostle John advised ( 1Jn 4:1 ) they are convinced to accept the prophet because of feelings , how well dressed the prophet is , or how he talks about being good persons etc .

  14. falcon says:

    Folks…………….isn’t revelation fun? And if a person uses their imagination a little not only can someone have revelation but they can have mystical experiences with the appearance of spirit beings. These LDS, turning their decision making and “agency” over to those they think are spiritual leaders who they suppose have superior mystical insights and experiences, will believe anything.
    Problem is the LDS really lack confidence in their own abilities to do some research and check things out. Once they do gain this confidence, they don’t stay LDS very long. It all melts away and that’s what frightens them. Quite often it’s leaving the LDS club that is a problem for enlightened members. They like the culture and the people and perhaps enjoy some status there.
    So here we have the LDS doctrine of the heavenly mother or mothers. It’s something made up out of whole cloth in the LDS doctrinal seamstress shop. All the alterations in the world can’t make this dress fit.

  15. falcon says:

    Well I just can’t help it. Going to Catholic school I was taught “once Catholic, always Catholic”. OK I get it. It’s where my moral and theological foundation was formed. I must admit however, as a born again believer in Christ, I have left Mary behind. My point is that years ago I started to think for myself and studied so I’d find myself approved and improved I’d say. None-the-less, a little more Catholic theology for our LDS readers:

    Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

    A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3).

    Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

    Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God “in the flesh” (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

    But wait a minute LDS. Didn’t one of your prophets, Brigham Young, teach that Adam was really “god” and that he had actual physical sex with the Virgin Mary? Thus this Adam-god had physical sexual relations with one of his spirit children. So does the LDS church accept and teach this “doctrine”?
    This revelation and prophets speaking out the mind of the Mormon god just gets real messy.

  16. historybuff says:

    It’s very difficult to discuss anything with the LDS because they are masters of denial. For example, regarding Brigham Young’s statements on the Adam God doctrine — or anything else, for that matter — Mormons are quick to point out that Brigham Young’s words are just speculation unless he said otherwise. The problem is that he DID say otherwise.

    “I say now, when they [my discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . ” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264).

    “I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161).

    “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95).” https://carm.org/brigham-young-quotes

    However, if you mention this fact to Mormons, suddenly there is a chill in the air, the conversation ends, and the good Mormon turns away. Suddenly they’re not interested in converting you anymore. You are now the enemy. That is the cost of denial, and most Mormons are willing to pay it. They are more to be pitied than condemned.

  17. falcon says:

    What happens with groups like the LDS is that they have to scare people off of actually doing some quality research. It’s a feared based system that tells people that to doubt Mormonism is of Satan and he will lead you astray and you’ll end up in outer darkness. These sects are absolutely desperate to keep people in the group, working and contributing their money. There’s false hope also that’s tied to temple “covenants” that if violated put the individual and their families at great risk.
    It’s all the same pattern regardless of the cult type sect. It’s the same techniques used by all of these type of groups
    I know from the accounts of former Mormons what it takes to start asking questions but unfortunately most don’t know what questions to ask.

  18. historybuff says:

    Granted, it’s tough to ask questions when your whole family and all your friends and neighbors are LDS, but that’s what integrity is all about. Unfortunately, most Mormons never develop the interest or the courage to get that far.

    “It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope and pride. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. … For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.” — Patrick Henry

  19. falcon says:

    The LDS I find interesting are those who just step off of the merry-go-round and never darken the door of the Ward again. They are folks for whom Mormonism didn’t “take”. They may have grown up in the sect but they simply have no interest in it. One of our former Mormon posters talked about how her husband had had no interest in the temple program…zero. She discovered, with some research, that the whole deal was bogus. That’s a very difficult position to take when you’re living surrounded by Mormons.
    So we have all different types of Mormons all the way down to the folks who are there simply for social programs. They could care less about multiple gods and mother goddesses. They like the programs for the kids and the morality of the sect.

  20. historybuff says:

    Falcon —

    Yeah, lots of religions have members who don’t really understand what their religion is all about, or don’t care. Some are just there for the social support, others for the spiritual boost, others for the community service, others for the status. Mormons attend for all these reasons and more.

    Like you’ve said many times, the key to effective worship is knowing what you’re doing and why. Truth is at the core of worship since without truth, worship is misguided. I have family and friends who, sadly, seem to be in the Mormon Church for all the wrong reasons. To them it’s a social club that serves the community, although they’re required to occasionally parrot back to the local congregation that they “know the Church is true.” That’s pretty easy easy to do if you can consciously avoid the truth. They won’t even read the Church’s essays, insisting that the Church’s PR Department has somehow gone rogue.

    Even though the Church insists the PR Department is following the direction of the Prophet, my family and friends ignore that, too.

    As they say, Denial is not just a river in Egypt…

  21. falcon says:

    We’ve had Mormons post here and get all self-righteous because I’d tell them that I know that the BoM and Mormonism isn’t true and yet I’ve never read the BoM. They insist that you can’t know that it’s not true unless you’ve read it. I tell them I have a sure fire way of determining if any religious group is “true” or not. It’s simple. Tell me who your God is. Once I know who your God is, then I know if your sect has the true revelation. If they can’t get God right, then everything else will be wrong.
    Thus our article here. What does it reveal about Mormonism at least the form practiced by the LDS. We’ve got millions and billions of gods, father gods and mother gods galore.

  22. falcon says:

    If I want to know something regarding God’s revelation to mankind I look in the Bible. I may research to see what others have commented on but I’m free to accept or reject their reasoning.
    Where do Mormons go if they want to know if something is true or not? They go to their prophets whom, they suppose, get on-going revelation from the Mormon god. So they have to trust what their prophets are telling them is true. Well what in the world do they do when their “prophets” are all over the map on a topic, especially the nature of God?
    What’s necessary is they have to have an escape hatch in order to keep believing in their prophets who are later contradicted by subsequent prophets. Is it any wonder that there are Mormon prophets past and present representing all varieties of Mormon sects all speaking the “truth”?
    Who did Joseph Smith think God is when he, Smith, was writing the BoM? Who did Brigham Young think God is? What did subsequent LDS leaders do with doctrines and teachings regarding the nature of God spoken by LDS prophets whom they found embarrassing?
    For you LDS folks let me give you rule number one. Be careful who you listen to. Rule number two; believe what the Bible says. Maybe that should be rule number one. If you, as an LDS sect member, believe that the Bible is corrupted, then you’ll believe anything anyone claiming to be a prophet says. Bad policy!

  23. historybuff says:

    Falcon —

    You’re absolutely right, and that’s the fatal flaw in LDS theology. That’s the reason they need to cover up their doctrines and history. Other religions can freely admit their errors (although they usually don’t). But because Mormons claim continuing revelation, they have to cover up their mistakes or else they’re admitting they lack continuing revelation. They’ve painted themselves into a corner and the double-talk they’re currently engaging in will eventually come back to bite them.

  24. falcon says:

    Believe it or not, it’s these convoluted doctrines like heavenly mother that are a real turn on to LDS. It’s the whole emotional hook of forever families and hubby being a god and the Mrs. being a goddess that flips some peoples’ emotional switch. Where do bizarre doctrines like this come from? People make them up! It’s really that simple. If the person making up these doctrines is convincing enough, there are people who will believe it.
    Remember, these false prophets can’t function without a willing people to believe them.

  25. Mike R says:

    The title of this thread is in accord with the testimony of the Bible about our Creator — the Lord God Almighty we meet in the Bible needs no Gods or Goddesses to help or complete Him . Yet Mormonism teaches that God has a female Deity in His life in heaven , a finite , fallen ,female from another world who learned how to become an Almighty Goddess . But He had to first marry such a creature in order to even become a God Himself .
    Mormon leaders have truly stripped God of His uniqueness , they have succumbed to changing Him into just a man from another world who attained Godhood . Sadly , this is something not new other men did something similar long ago — Rom 1:23

    Concerning the Mormon doctrine of Heavenly Mother / God the Mother ?, this is a fundamental doctrine of Mormonism and yet Mormon “scripture” is silent on Her attributes and title — Her very existence is only “inferred ” in Mormon scripture . Many Mormons even seem to be reluctant to talk about Her in public interviews . All in all given this is a fundamental doctrine of Mormonism , it is not treated in the way it should be as such given it’s importance . Only Mormons can answer that conundrum .

    The evidence points to the conclusion that this doctrine is the product of Joseph Smith imagination , later Mormon leaders added to Joseph’s new ” gospel truth ” . The Mormon doctrine of a Mother Goddess came to be emphasized to the church only after Joseph had reduced God down to be only a man who became God , and that any Mormon male could do the very same thing . This error was therefore one which dove tailed into other doctrines which were also not sound — 1Tim 4:6 , introduced by men who were thus identified as prophets of the latter days not sent by Jesus — Mk 13:22-23 ; 2 Tim 4:3, 4

    God help the Mormon people to return to the truth about Him and dismiss their prophets who have strayed from that revealment which the Bible declares .

  26. falcon says:

    Here’s a question for our LDS readers.
    Mormonism is suppose to be the restoration of first century Christianity which disappeared after the death of the apostles. Can you find any evidence for the doctrine which is the subject of this thread? That is, is there evidence that it was taught, believed and practiced by the first century Christian church?
    We know what was taught by the Church Fathers. We know what was taught by the heretics. Guess what? Neither the Church Fathers or the heretics taught this doctrine. In addition to this, and it’s an important point, the apostles didn’t teach it either.
    So I submit that the claim of a restored gospel is totally bogus. Do you really want to invest yourself in a created 19th century religion trying to masquerade as original Christianity?

Leave a Reply