SMPT Call for Papers

[_Yahoo Bot]

I've already said I don't agree.

In 1 Nephi 8:13—14, Lehi's tree is associated with a river and spring of water. "The symbols of fountain and tree of life are frequent" in wisdom literature too.91 Nephi himself, in 1 Nephi 11:25, actually equates the "tree of life" with "the fountain of living waters," "which waters," he relates, "are a representation of the love of God." "And I also beheld," he continues, "that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God."

This is ridiculous to say that the Book of Mormon has references to a consort to Jehovah. Your cites are ridiculous.

Wisdom literature is found in Proverbs, as any 19th Century Biblical commentary would have said. As is apparent from Proverbs, Wisdom is feminine.

The tree of life motif is in Genesis.

Living waters is a motif from the Exodus.

All three of these are Judaic symbols (as well as pagan). But to say that these references to Judaic symbols reference a consort to Jehovah is fantastic, a stretch of the highest order, and directly contrary to Yahweh's own condemnation of Asherah. "Your Lord God hates". Deuteronomy 16:21-22.

How ghastly was the Asherah cult, with its sacred prostitution and phallic pole.

[_Gadianton]

Hi Yahoo Bot,

I think that Lamanite from an LDS perspective is right to completely reject the "2000 years" of philosophical tradition. As you know, Chapel Mormons believe that this tradition is corrupt and has mixed the ideas of man with scripture. Restored scriptures and prophets give the revelatory channels needed for salvation and all philosophy can do is screw this up.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Hi Yahoo Bot,

I think that Lamanite from an LDS perspective is right to completely reject the "2000 years" of philosophical tradition. As you know, Chapel Mormons believe that this tradition is corrupt and has mixed the ideas of man with scripture. Restored scriptures and prophets give the revelatory channels needed for salvation and all philosophy can do is screw this up.

I think I've noted above that I agree with that concept. Rather, my argument has been that he's a fool to bust Peterson over the topic when it seems to be a rather common approach in religious discussion amongst academics. But, oh well, I'm used up on this one.

[_harmony]

I think I've noted above that I agree with that concept. Rather, my argument has been that he's a fool to bust Peterson over the topic when it seems to be a rather common approach in religious discussion amongst academics. But, oh well, I'm used up on this one.

I"m still trying to figure out which side of the question you're on, Bot.

[_Gadianton]

Hi Yahoo Bot,

I think that Lamanite from an LDS perspective is right to completely reject the "2000 years" of philosophical tradition. As you know, Chapel Mormons believe that this tradition is corrupt and has mixed the ideas of man with scripture. Restored scriptures and prophets give the revelatory channels needed for salvation and all philosophy can do is screw this up.

I think I've noted above that I agree with that concept. Rather, my argument has been that he's a fool to bust Peterson over the topic when it seems to be a rather common approach in religious discussion amongst academics. But, oh well, I'm used up on this one.

Well, Yahoo Bot, you are right that it is a common approach in religious discussion amongst academics. The problem is, it's pure idolatry. Perhaps you agree with this as well and there is still something I'm missing. I think one must choose between God and Mammon. As Hugh Nibley said, one can never be happy with one foot in Zion and one in Babylon; note that Babylon was a fairly solid place to have an academic discussion.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I"m still trying to figure out which side of the question you're on, Bot.

I think I'm on the losing side of trying to explain my position.

Academics and philosophical proofs of the Restoration gospel have an eternal value equivalent to the the proportional share of space academics and proofs have in general conference addresses as opposed to all other proofs.