How would any Ashera images not be man-made? Because its allegedly part of a heavenly vision? Isaiah’s rejection of these idolatrous symbols derived from Canaanite fertility rites is universal. Given Nephi’s clear interest in Isaiah’s writings it is discordant to assume Nephi would recognize a heavely representation of ashera as something intuitively obvious, as Peterson submits. Peterson suggests Nephi’s alleged familiarity with Israelite acculturation of Ashera would have lent itself to the use of the Ashera symbol in a divine vision. I suggest that is not the case given the consistent anti-Canaanite views of the Law of Moses and the various extant OT Prophets available to Nephi, whom he was clearly devoted to.

(7) In that day men will look to their Maker
and turn their eyes to the Holy One of Israel.

(8) They will not look to the altars,
the work of their hands,
and they will have no regard for the Asherah poles
and the incense altars their fingers have made.

These verses seems to condemn only man-made Asherah images.
———
Kurt said:

My impression of the LDS proclivity towards Ashera being the wife of God is to fill in the whole “God has a Wife” thing so as to conveniently fit the LDS theology of eternal progeny and all that.

I agree with you on this point.

Yes, Peterson did suggest that, and there isnt much to suggest that is the case, and there is a lot of hostile material in the Scriptures arguing against it. Isaiah’s attitude towards Ashera, groves, and any form of adulteration of Israelite worship of the Lord was pretty plain, and its obvious that Nephi was quite devoted to Isaiah’s writings. I dont find Peterson’s ideas compelling, and the manner in which he places numerous caveats in the text of the article itself should give the reader pause.

Karl D,

My impression of the LDS proclivity towards Ashera being the wife of God is to fill in the whole “God has a Wife” thing so as to conveniently fit the LDS theology of eternal progeny and all that. While I can accept that God has a wife, its pointless to concoct kooky explanations in an effort to fill a void. Speculative nonsense is speculative nonsense, no matter how bad you would like it to fill a void.

I suggest someone flat out ask Peterson to come and respond to some of the questions and issues. He is probably reading this now anyway.

The reform of Josiah/the Deuteronomists then, reconstructed as best we can from both biblical and non-biblical sources, seems to have been a time when more than pagan accretions were removed from the Jerusalem cult. Wisdom was eliminated, even though her presence was never forgotten, the heavenly ascent and the vision of God were abandoned, the hosts of heaven, the angels, we declared to be unfit for the chosen people, the ark (and the presence of Yahweh which it represented) was removed, and the role of the high priest was altered in that he was no longer the anointed. All of these features of the older cult were to appear in Christianity.

I wonder if Daniel Petereson would argue, today, that the Asherah was just a pagan symbol that Nephi was familiar with?

Note: Personally, I find Barker’s hypotheses intriguing, but by their very nature highly speculative. I do think her reconstruction (of the Israelite religion) is worth considering in this context.

As I read the article, I thought one of the major points Peterson had was to call into question the assumption that Asherah references were simply pagan pollutions in the Hebrew religion. He implied that they may in fact have been accepted doctrine by the prophets at the time.