The Shoutout to Heavenly Mother You’ve Been Missing in 1 Nephi Chapter 11

[zil]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

I think part of the difficultly lies with how Nephi tells the story.

Nephi:  "I want to know what the tree means/stands for"

Angel: <Shows the Mother of the Son of God>  "Now do you know what the tree means?"

Nephi: "The Love of God"

Me: "Say what?  How did you get to that?  Clearly there is context here that Nephi knew and that I do not...  Because that is a huge leap from what I see and Nephi gets it right.."

If we are pondering and likening the scriptures that can be a bit of a puzzler 

Except it wasn't only Mary that Nephi saw.  The exchange went like this:

Nephi sees "the tree which is precious above all"

A: What do you desire?

N: To know the interpretation thereof.

Nephi sees Mary in Nazareth (is asked what he sees and replies that he sees a virgin...)

A: Knowest thou the condescension of God?

N: Uh, not exactly, but I know God loves us.

A: The virgin will be the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh

Nephi sees that she is carried away in the Spirit and then sees her bearing a child in her arms.

A: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!  Knowest though the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

N: 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.

In other words, Nephi recognizes that the tree is symbolic of the Lamb of God - sent because God so loved the world.... - the Savior, who will bring salvation and eternal life, which is the "greatest of all gifts of God" (D&C 14:7) - which sounds synonymous with "most desirable".

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, zil said:

Except it wasn't only Mary that Nephi saw.  The exchange went like this:

Nephi sees "the tree which is precious above all"

A: What do you desire?

N: To know the interpretation thereof.

Nephi sees Mary in Nazareth (is asked what he sees and replies that he sees a virgin...)

A: Knowest thou the condescension of God?

N: Uh, not exactly, but I know God loves us.

A: The virgin will be the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh

Nephi sees that she is carried away in the Spirit and then sees her bearing a child in her arms.

A: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!  Knowest though the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

N: 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.

In other words, Nephi recognizes that the tree is symbolic of the Lamb of God - sent because God so loved the world.... - the Savior, who will bring salvation and eternal life, which is the "greatest of all gifts of God" (D&C 14:7) - which sounds synonymous with "most desirable".

For me, this begs the question (and not the rhetorical meaning of begging the question, what I mean is that this explanation is begging me to ask a specific question), why bring up Mary at all?

[zil]

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

why bring up Mary at all?

To demonstrate that the Son of God will be born in the flesh, into mortality - sent from God to men - and there atone for the sins of the world.

Edited January 30, 2019 by zil

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

Except it wasn't only Mary that Nephi saw.  The exchange went like this:

Nephi sees "the tree which is precious above all"

A: What do you desire?

N: To know the interpretation thereof.

Nephi sees Mary in Nazareth (is asked what he sees and replies that he sees a virgin...)

A: Knowest thou the condescension of God?

N: Uh, not exactly, but I know God loves us.

A: The virgin will be the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh

Nephi sees that she is carried away in the Spirit and then sees her bearing a child in her arms.

A: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!  Knowest though the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

N: 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.

In other words, Nephi recognizes that the tree is symbolic of the Lamb of God - sent because God so loved the world.... - the Savior, who will bring salvation and eternal life, which is the "greatest of all gifts of God" (D&C 14:7) - which sounds synonymous with "most desirable".

Well, I guess I can't be a copycat again.  I went and looked at the posts before I wrote ^^this^^.

But. YES.

[Fether]

1 minute ago, zil said:

To demonstrate that the Son of God will be born in the flesh, into mortality - sent from God to  men - and there atone for the sins of the world.

I love this 👍

[zil]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I guess I can't be a copycat again.  I went and looked at the posts before I wrote ^^this^^.

But. YES.

And what bugs me is when people recount this exchange and entirely leave out the Son of God, as if the exchange went straight from "look, here's a virgin" to "now you see what the tree means?" without the birth of Christ falling between those two.  (Indeed, it bugs me more after just writing that sentence.)

[Guest]

The reason I reacted this way to the article was that it was exactly parallel to my first encounter with an Asherah worshiper.  Before I even knew there was such a thing as an "Asherah worshiper" and before I knew the feminist movement created a cadre of LDS women who insisted on praying to our Heavenly Mother, I came across someone who merely referenced an antrhopologist's article about the mention of Ashtaroth in the O.T. being proof of a divine feminine that was "nearly written out" of the Bible.

I tried correcting the woman, pointing out several points I've written here before.  She backed into: "Well, I have a right to personal revelation.  And I know that I'm supposed to pray to my Mother in Heaven.  And there's nothing you or the prophet can say to show me otherwise."

Yes, that's paraphrased.  But that was both the tone and the message that she declared.

What this article covers is almost line-for-line what this anthropologist said -- different, but parallel.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, zil said:

And what bugs me is when people recount this exchange and entirely leave out the Son of God, as if the exchange went straight from "look, here's a virgin" to "now you see what the tree means?" without the birth of Christ falling between those two.  (Indeed, it bugs me more after just writing that sentence.)

Yes, they also leave out convenient phrases like.

Quote

...after the manner of the flesh.

Try to explain that one in this purported paradigm.

[estradling75]

27 minutes ago, zil said:

Except it wasn't only Mary that Nephi saw.  The exchange went like this:

Nephi sees "the tree which is precious above all"

A: What do you desire?

N: To know the interpretation thereof.

Nephi sees Mary in Nazareth (is asked what he sees and replies that he sees a virgin...)

A: Knowest thou the condescension of God?

N: Uh, not exactly, but I know God loves us.

A: The virgin will be the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh

Nephi sees that she is carried away in the Spirit and then sees her bearing a child in her arms.

A: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!  Knowest though the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

N: 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.

In other words, Nephi recognizes that the tree is symbolic of the Lamb of God - sent because God so loved the world.... - the Savior, who will bring salvation and eternal life, which is the "greatest of all gifts of God" (D&C 14:7) - which sounds synonymous with "most desirable".

That is how you read it..  Not how I have read it in the past... I have read it several times wondering how Nephi got that point... Now I fully admit that I have struggled with symbolism in the past.  If you tell me the Tree represents the Love of God I can accept it... but who told Nephi?  The Angel did not.   I have no problem with the idea of Nephi being smarter, more spiritual, better versed in symbolism the I am so I accept it, but it does not mean I followed how he got there.

Edited January 30, 2019 by estradling75

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The reason I reacted this way to the article was that it was exactly parallel to my first encounter with an Asherah worshiper.  Before I even knew there was such a thing as an "Asherah worshiper" and before I knew the feminist movement created a cadre of LDS women who insisted on praying to our Heavenly Mother, I came across someone who merely referenced an antrhopologist's article about the mention of Ashtaroth in the O.T. being proof of a divine feminine that was "nearly written out" of the Bible.

I tried correcting the woman, pointing out several points I've written here before.  She backed into: "Well, I have a right to personal revelation.  And I know that I'm supposed to pray to my Mother in Heaven.  And there's nothing you or the prophet can say to show me otherwise."

Yes, that's paraphrased.  But that was both the tone and the message that she declared.

What this article covers is almost line-for-line what this anthropologist said -- different, but parallel.

I had never heard of that before now, but I guess it's not a surprise.  

The biggest red flag being, of course, "And there's nothing... the prophet can say to show me otherwise."  Sorry sister, but when it comes to doctrine, yes, yes there is.  Personal revelation does not trump Church authorities, especially in matters of doctrine.

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

this begs the question (and not the rhetorical meaning of begging the question, what I mean is that this explanation is begging me to ask a specific question)

Vort A: Nonsense. "Begs the question" has a specific meaning, and that isn't it. It refers to a type of circular reasoning, not wanting to ask a question.

Vort B: Well, yes. But it's a stupid phrase. "Beg the question"? Really? It has nothing to do with begging. At least Fether's version makes sense.

Vort A: No way! You can't just go about assigning random meanings to phrases and expect that to lead to clear communications! It's madness! Confusion! Mass hysteria! Dogs and cats living together!

Vort B: Noam Chomsky says you're wrong.

Vort A: Noam Chomsky can go hang! Who cares what that Communist says? Noam Chomsky's opinion and five dollars will buy you a cup of coffee!

Vort B: Except you know he's right.

Vort A: Shut up. Who asked you?

Vort B: That begs the question—

Vort A: SHUT UP!

Vort B: [smirk]

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

That is how you read it..  Not how I have read it in the pass... I have read it several times wondering how Nephi got that point... Now I fully admit that I have struggled with symbolism in the pass.  If you tell me the Tree represents the Love of God I can accept it... but who told Nephi?  The Angel did not.   I have no problem with the idea of Nephi being smarter, more spiritual, better versed in symbolism the I am so I accept it, but it does not mean I followed how he got there.

There is also a predecessor to that which fed into that conclusion.

Quote

16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?

17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.

This doesn't even have ANYthing in between.  How did Nephi know that "the condescension of God" had anything to do with God loving His children?

Nephi did not know that the Son of God would be born among men. (It appears to me).  I'm guessing that he only got heavily into Isaiah AFTER these visions and many other heavenly visitations in the wilderness.

Because he didn't know.  What exactly are we to gather from the phrase "condescension of God"?

The subsequent visions explained it to Nephi.  Then he realized how much God loved His Children.  Thence, the Tree = God's love.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Guest

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 

This doesn't even have ANYthing in between.  How did Nephi know that "the condescension of God" have anything to do with Him loving His children?

 

Maybe not for you.... Maybe (and apparently not) for Nephi.  But it did not for me.  Now you can continue to imply and infer that stupid and inferior because I did not make the connection that is plain as day to you.  But it does not change that I did not and it appears that I am not the only one.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

Maybe not for you.... Maybe (and apparently not) for Nephi.  But it did not for me.  Now you can continue to imply and infer that stupid and inferior because I did not make the connection that is plain as day to you.  But it does not change that I did not and it appears that I am not the only one.

What???

You asked a question.  I answered it.  Where on earth did you get the idea that I was implying you were stupid or inferior?

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

What???

You asked a question.  I answered it.  Where on earth did you get the idea that I was implying you were stupid or inferior?

I was sharing my personal experience I had reading the scriptures including the questions I asked myself while reading.  The fact that you found the question to be irrelevant it fine for you but more then a bit insulting to imply that my question should have been self evident to me.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I was sharing my personal experience I had reading the scriptures including the questions I asked myself while reading.  The fact that you found the question to be irrelevant it fine for you but more then a bit insulting to imply that my question should have been self evident to me.

I'm going to have to express what my thought process was from the beginning.  You expressed a question and the reasons for being puzzled.

59 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Angel: <Shows the Mother of the Son of God>  "Now do you know what the tree means?"

Nephi: "The Love of God"

Me: "Say what?  How did you get to that?  Clearly there is context here that Nephi knew and that I do not...  Because that is a huge leap from what I see and Nephi gets it right.."

This reminded me of when I had the same reaction to the earlier exchange about the condescension of God.  I, myself, asked,"What does that have to do with the question?"  Because no one I asked had an answer to that question, It took me a long time to ponder, study, and figure out the answer.

Trying to save you the trouble, I thought I'd share it with you to help answer YOUR question.  That was really all that was going through my mind.  I was making no judgements about you in any way.  I was trying to be helpful. 

Is there a reason you got so triggered?

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Trying to save you the trouble, I thought I'd share it with you to help answer YOUR question.  That was really all that was going through my mind.  I was making no judgements about you in any way.  I was trying to be helpful. 

Is there a reason you got so triggered?

I was not asking for help.... I was using a personal example to show why some people might have questions in this section.  I neither wanted or asked for you to tell me how you did not have a problem with those questions, (and therefore dismiss it) because everyone is going to have different issues.  Basically saying it is "Not an Issue" does not help anyone who is really struggling. (and again I use this as an example not an invitation) 

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But you never know.  President Nelson is just full of surprises, doncha know?  

The fact that something theoretically *can* happen does not mean that we should expend time and energy preparing for the time when it *will* happen; and I grow weary of those who use the concept of modern revelation to justify a sort of theological/moral nihilism.  That reference to President Nelson, probably more than anything else, is what irritated me about the article.  

By the way, I have no problem with the idea of the Lord appropriating secular or even pagan symbols for pedagogical purposes.  It’s when people suggest that through doing so, the Lord is endorsing (or at least winking at) paganism itself; that I get a little tetchy.

He is. 

I should point out that the article has some good points, and though the Name of ONE OF THE WIVES of the ancient Judaic Deities would be closely related to the Goddess Asherah, that may not actually have been her name.  In addition, there are multiple names that can be referenced to in that degree.

However, the idea that the Jews were aware of this familial status is clear throughout the scriptures. (and from an LDS point of view may mean that they were aware of the idea of eternal families among the ancient Hebrews...and that this was a process that was eternal with Heavenly Parents and what we may become...HOWEVER, if so it obviously also has been lost in our modern times).

It should ALSO be noted...

That she is never promoted as an object of worship in the our Scriptures.  In deed, there are multiple references of people who fall away trying to worship her and being examples of false worship.

Thus, I would HIGHLY DOUBT that our prophet would ever promote such a thing.  It would be very odd, to say the least.

However, the connection between wood and an inference to the Divine feminine is with merit.  Groves and other areas were considered to be able to be sacred areas throughout history (and in fact, we even have our own).  The problem comes when it becomes the focus or the object of worship as opposed to simple recognition of areas of sacred or of a holy nature (or even, to a degree, maybe simply historic nature).

In this, I can find the idea of the Mary and a mother along with a representation of wood or trees as something that may be seen as ONE interpretation.  Rarely does symbology in scripture have only one interpretation, and at many times has multiple interpretations that can apply to gospel theology. 

However, I would paint it as speculation or a thought one has rather than anything far more impressive in theology.  It can be a delicate subject and as one forments it more strongly, we can edge on the border of apostasy when it comes closer to being one's solid belief rather than just an assortment of rather interesting thoughts or ideas.

This is undoubtably (and I've even commented on this very subject previously) something that was known and inspired the Ancient Hebrews.  However, lest we forget, some of them also took it way too FAR and devolved into breaking the commandments and idol worship instead of focusing on GOD as they were commanded to do.  Even as we are aware of such things and attempt to increase our understanding of the idea of a Heavenly Mother who is holy and sacred, we should also keep in context our doctrine and not stray to the point of worshipping other than we have been commanded.

Edited January 30, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But you never know.  President Nelson is just full of surprises, doncha know?  

He is. 

[...]

Thus, I would HIGHLY DOUBT that our prophet would ever promote such a thing.  It would be very odd, to say the least.

Perhaps you didn't realize that JAG was making a not-too-oblique reference to something written in the original article. I'm confident that JAG himself does not expect President Nelson to make any such announcements.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I was not asking for help...

I neither wanted or asked for you to tell me how you did not have a problem with those questions

I'm guessing there is more than what you're saying.  But if you don't want me to respond to your posts anymore.  I guess I will cease.

[Just_A_Guy]

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

Perhaps you didn't realize that JAG was making a not-too-oblique reference to something written in the original article. I'm confident that JAG himself does not expect President Nelson to make any such announcements.

And to be clear—I hope I’m open-minded enough to ultimately accept whatever light and knowledge the Lord sees fit to reveal through President Nelson.

That said, I think human history suggests strongly that given our selfish, carnal, feckless natures; we are in general several orders of magnitude more likely to use the doctrine of a heavenly mother to justify bad behavior, than we are to use it to inspire good behavior.  As Churchill acidly remarked—in war some truths are so precious that they must be kept carefully hidden.  And spiritually, we are very much at war.  

Edited January 30, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, zil said:

Sure, as soon as one says it - [tree = mother, fruit = child] - the symbolism becomes obvious,

I haven't read the article...so maybe I'm missing something...but it strikes me that such an idea would only be obvious if somehow the implication was that we were meant to eat...babies. 

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I haven't read the article...so maybe I'm missing something...but it strikes me that such an idea would only be obvious if somehow the implication was that we were meant to eat...babies. 

Seriously, that would not be so unusual. We symbolically do exactly this (eat someone's flesh and drink his blood) every week.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Seriously, that would not be so unusual. We symbolically do exactly this (eat someone's flesh and drink his blood) every week.

Right...to @zil's point...we symbolically partake of Christ..because he who drinks and eats of the everlasting fountain/fruit of the tree of life (Christ) drinks/eats salvation.

Following the analogy to partaking of the babies of our Heavenly Mother doesn't really work in any way, shape or form.

Edited January 30, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Right...to @zil's point...we symbolically partake of Christ..because he who drinks and eats of the everlasting fountain/fruit of the tree of life (Christ) drinks/eats salvation.

Following the analogy to partaking of the babies of our Heavenly Mother doesn't really work in any way, shape or form.

Well, except that the baby in question is in fact the Savior.